Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/masterpiecesofgrOOfurt_O 


r h 


MASTERPIECES  OF 
REEK  SCULPTURE 


IT. 


• * 


' 


MASTERPIECES 
OF  GREEK  * * * 
SCULPTURE  * 

A SERIES  OF  ESSAYS 
ON  THE  HISTORY  OF 
ART  BY  ADOEF 

FURTWANGLER 
EDITED  BY  EUGENIE 
SELLERS  WITH 

NINETEEN  FULL-PAGE 
PLATES  &?  TWO  HUNDRED 
TEXT  ILLUSTRATIONS 


LONDON  : WILLIAM  HEINEMANN  : MDCCCXCV 


NB 

90 

F93 


Richard  Clay  and  Sons.  Limited , 
London  and  Bungay. 


To  HEINRICH  BRUNN 


& ERNST  CURTIUS 

In  Respectful  Devotion 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 


ANY  unprejudiced  attempt  to  form,  from  the 
text-books  now  in  use,  an  estimate  of  the 
state  of  our  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
art  among  the  Greeks  will  force  us  to  own  with 
shame  that  we  appear  to  know  and  to  utilize  the 
monuments  far  less  than  did  Winckelmann  in  his 
day.  Winckelmann’s  History  of  Art  is  wholly  based 
upon  a fresh  and  personal  observation  of  the  monu- 
ments, of  which  he  makes  a constant  and  extensive 
use.  Our  more  recent  histories  of  art  are  wont  to 
take  into  consideration  only  one  and  the  same  small 
group  of  monuments,  an  accidental  section  of  the 
mass  of  what  has  been  preserved.  Ever  since  Brunn 
laid  with  a master  hand  the  foundation  for  the 
history  and  the  characterization  of  the  Greek  artists, 
so  far  as  these  can  be  gathered  from  the  traditions  of  the  ancients,  writers  have  for 
the  most  part  been  content  to  repeat  what  he  established,  only  perhaps  adding  an 
occasional  ‘ selected  ’ monument  to  trim,  as  it  were,  the  fabric  of  his  weaving.  Still  it 
was  quite  justifiable  to  be  thus  prudent  and  cautious  in  dealing  with  the  monu- 
ments, so  long  as  we  only  painfully  groped  our  way  amidst  the  wealth  of  remains, 
without  knowing  how  they  should  be  utilized : it  was  certainly  better  to  limit 
investigation  to  the  little  which  was  ascertained,  than  to  venture  without  stay  or 
support  upon  the  ocean  of  what  actually  exists. 

Modern  science,  however,  has  afforded  us  a stay  which  enables  us  to  keep 
steadily  in  the  direction  of  our  goal.  Any  one  who  understands  how  to  observe  the 
monuments,  and  who  is  willing,  with  indefatigable  ardour,  to  test  afresh  and  compare 
all  forms,  may  nowadays,  by  means  of  photography,  which  helps  to  fix  the  individual 
objects,  obtain  a picture  of  Greek  art  far  more  richly  coloured  than  the  pale  and 
meagre  image  we  have  hitherto  possessed. 

I know  that  many  fellow-scholars  are  engaged  upon  these  lines,  and  it  is  only  by 
combined  effort  that  we  shall  be  able  to  advance.  Each  must  bring  what  contribu- 
tions he  can.  The  investigations  which  I publish  here  are  all  closely  interconnected  ; 
their  ultimate  object  is  to  gain  from  the  monuments  a new  and  solid  foundation  on 
which  to  build  a history  of  statuary  among  the  Greeks,  for,  before  undertaking  to 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE 


viii 

draw  from  the  monuments — as  has  long  been  my  ambition  a new  presentment  of 
this  history,  the  way  must  be  smoothed  by  isolated  inquiries. 

The  first  of  the  essays,  that  on  Pheidias— containing  the  identification  of  the 
Lemnia — was  the  external  inducement  to  the  publication  of  the  othei  sections,  most 
of  which  had  been  written  previously.  Starting  from  the  Lemnia,  the  inquiry  extends 
to  the  whole  circle  of  Pheidias  and  to  the  Akropolis,  the  chief  scene  of  his  activity  , 
thence  it  passes  on  to  his  more  independent  contemporary  Ivresilas,  and  from  him  harks 
back  to  Myron.  Myron  affords  a transition  to  Peloponnesian  art,  and  the  inquiry 
passes  naturally  on  to  Polykleitos.  The  powerful  effect  exercised  by  the  creations 
of  the  latter  upon  the  Attic  artists  of  the  fourth  century  leads  accordingly  to 
Skopas,  Praxiteles,  and  Euphranor,  and  finally  to  a glance  at  Lysippos.  Some 
special  tendencies  of  Skopas  and  Praxiteles  are  followed  out  more  in  detail  in 
the  next  section  on  the  Venus  of  Milo,  while  the  chapter  on  the  Belvedere  Apollo 
reverts  from  the  creations  of  the  fourth  century  to  those  of  the  Pheidian  epoch. 
The  method  of  investigation  is  throughout  the  inductive,  which  passes  step  by 
step  from  one  conclusion  to  another.  Much  which  belonged  together  has  thus 
inevitably  been  wrenched  apart  ; but  this  fault  may  be  rectified  by  the  index,  which 
will  enable  the  student  readily  to  put  the  material  together  in  its  systematic  historical 
order.  The  museographic  index  will  also  be  welcome  to  the  reader. 

The  material  treated  in  this  book  consists  for  the  most  part  of  antique 
copies,  since,  except  for  the  well-known  few  though  splendid  exceptions,  the 
best  creations  of  antiquity  survive  only  in  copies.  True,  to  the  number  of  these 
exceptions — original  works  of  first-rate  artists — I add  one  at  least  (Plate  XVII.)  ; 
yet  the  multitude  of  other  masterpieces  whose  traces  are  here  followed  are  still 
known  only  at  second  hand. 

The  increasingly  rich  discoveries  of  oiiginal  works  on  Greek  soil  have  lately 
somewhat  thrown  into  the  shade  the  study  of  the  copies,  for  which  we  are  mainly 
indebted  to  Italy,  not  to  the  advantage  of  our  science.  The  original  sculptures  from 
Greece  are,  with  those  rare  exceptions  to  which  I have  already  alluded,  works  of  the 
second  or  even  inferior  rank.  The  Roman  copies,  on  the  other  hand,  have  preserved 
that  pick  from  the  masterpieces  of  the  classical  epoch  which  pleased  ancient  taste  and 
connoisseurship  in  the  times  of  highest  culture.  It  is  the  pick  of  the  best  and  the 
most  famous  that  antiquity  possessed.  Among  these  copies  it  is  that  we  must  look 
for  the  masterpieces  mentioned  by  the  authors,  for  the  statues  that  made  epochs  or 
initiated  movements.  Were  we  to  possess  only  copies  of  the  noble  creations  of  a 
Raphael,  a Michelangelo,  or  a Rembrandt,  these  would  certainly  be  better  worth  one’s 
study  than  the  hosts  of  other  originals  of  the  time. 

It  is  manifest  from  this  that  our  first  duty  is  accurate  examination  and  criticism 
of  the  extant  copies.  This  kind  of  study  is  as  yet  only  in  its  infancy  ; but  it  is 
precisely  here  that  photography  is  of  invaluable  assistance,  and  by  its  aid  we  may  hope 
to  make  rapid  progress.  Above  all,  an  almost  painful  accuracy  is  required.  The 
older  works  dealing  with  our  store  of  copies  suffer  almost  throughout  from  obscurity 
as  to  what  is  to  be  really  regarded  as  a copy.  No  adequate  distinction  is  drawn 
between  copies  and  adaptations  or  even  figures  which  are  merely  similar.  Formerly, 
indeed,  relatively  little  was  known  of  the  existence  of  actual  close  copies,  and  for  the 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE 


IX 


most  part  only  few  late  reproductions  or  variants  were  believed  in.  Two  mistakes  in 
particular  were  very  frequently  made  : either  actual  copies  of  one  and  the  same 
original  were  taken  for  different  modifications  or  variants  of  one  ‘ type  ’ ; or  else 
copies  of  quite  different  originals  were  taken  for  later  copyists’  variations  of  one 
original. 

As  regards  principles  and  method  in  the  criticism  of  copies,  many  rules  might 
be  laid  down — yet  I have  never  been  able  to  see  any  use  in  talk  about  method, 
much  less  in  boasting  about  it.  Rules  would  never  embrace,  even  remotely,  the 
whole  range  of  possibilities  presented  by  reality.  Method  can  be  shown  only  by 
application.  The  researches  in  this  book  show  by  numerous  instances  what  are  the 
requisitions  I think  necessary  for  the  criticisms  of  copies,  and  how  I think  copies 
should  be  dealt  with  (cf.  Index  under  Copies).  Just  a few  remarks  may  however  be 
in  place. 

In  the  more  delicate  appreciation  of  the  copies,  all  of  course  depends  on  a right 
discrimination  between  what  is  derived  from  the  original  and  what  is  added  by  the 
copyist.  This  point  will  always  be  a rich  mine  of  error  in  inquiries  of  this  kind  ; yet 
a long  familiarity  with  the  monuments,  and  a sense  sharpened  thereby,  will  preserve 
one  from  at  least  gross  mistakes.  Further,  it  is  above  all  important  that  the 
monuments  should  not  be  torn  out  of  their  setting.  Any  inquiry  concerning  the 
masterpieces  of  antiquity  must,  if  we  would  avoid  error,  be  made  only  in  a wide 
connexion.  The  individual  work  must  be  replaced  in  the  environment  which 
conditioned  it,  and  through  which  alone  it  can  become  intelligible  ; and  in  our 
inquiry  concerning  any  single  monument  we  must  keep  all  the  others  to  which  it 
is  akin  steadily  in  view.  This  procedure  alone  can  guard  us  from  the  errors  which 
must  necessarily  arise  from  the  dilettante  habit  of  isolating  works,  and  connecting 
them  arbitrarily  with  the  names  of  artists.  Finally,  I may  add,  I have  made  it  my 
first  and  most  natural  rule  to  discuss  only  those  works  of  art  which  I have  myself 
examined.  In  the  relatively  few  cases  where  this  was  not  possible  I have  specially 
noted  the  fact.  Ocular  examination  can,  however,  be  at  times  replaced  by  good 
photographs  ; but  the  illustrated  works,  and  the  large  one  by  Clarac  in  particular, 
are  as  good  as  useless  for  our  purpose.  It  is  of  course  my  wish  that  my  readers 
should  be  in  a position  to  compare  for  themselves  as  many  originals,  casts,  and 
photographs  as  possible.  The  illustrations  in  the  book  reproduce  the  most  important 
and  least  accessible  monuments. 

At  first  many  will  doubtless  think  I have  been  too  bold  in  my  attributions  of 
extant  works  to  celebrated  artists.  But  on  deeper  familiarity  with  the  actual  objects 
these  doubts  will  vanish  more  and  more.  I can  at  any  rate  say  for  myself  that  I have, 
I believe,  been  sufficiently  critical  of  my  own  conjectures,  and  that  I have  scarcely 
allowed  one  to  stand  that  has  not  been  practically  laid  aside  and  tested  by  repeated 
trials,  and  has  approved  itself  in  a wider  connexion.  But  it  may  be  further  objected 
that  it  is  not  yet  time,  while  we  are  still  so  behindhand  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
general  development  of  the  separate  forms,  to  inquire  into  the  individualities  of  the 
several  artists.  The  study  of  these  forms,  however — in  so  far  as  it  touches  upon  the 
efflorescence  of  plastic  art  and  so  soon  as  it  enters  into  more  delicate  distinctions — is 
inseparable  from — -nay,  even  identical  with — the  inquiry  into  the  individualities  to 

b 


X 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE 


whom  precisely  this  or  that  particular  development  of  form  is  due.  Only  the  general 
pervading  features  of  this  development  must  be  assumed  throughout  as  the  solid 
basis  of  the  inquiry.  It  were  indeed  much  to  be  desired  that  this  basis  should  be 
effectively  laid  down  once  and  for  all  in  some  special  treatise,  since  unanimity  even 
in  this  respect  is  still  lacking  among  scholars. 

The  more  deeply  we  penetrate  into  that  selection  of  antique  masterpieces  which 
undoubtedly  survives  in  our  extant  copies,  the  more  forcibly  are  we  impressed  by  the 
individuality  of  the  great  artists  of  the  best  period.  I venture  to  hope  that,  beyond 
the  circle  of  specialists,  the  general  reader — for  the  book  is  intended  for  him  also — 
will  see  reason  to  modify  his  conception  of  the  antique,  and  will  grant  that  it  includes 
a far  greater  range  of  individual  development  than  has  hitherto  been  supposed.  It 
is  true  that  the  great  distinction  between  ancient  and  modern  culture  still  holds 
good  : the  untrammelled,  free  individuality,  at  once  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of 
modern  artists,  was  quite  foreign  to  antiquity.  The  ancient  artist  clung  to  established 
types  of  far-reaching  influence.  He  obeyed  laws  and  rules  in  his  treatment  of  bodily 
forms  and  of  attitude — and  for  this  the  book  affords  evidence  step  by  step — which  he 
modifies  and  alters,  extends  and  fashions  after  new  inspiration,  but  which  yet  impart 
to  his  whole  production  a something  inevitable,  typical,  known  by  rule.  It  is  this 
that  brings  about  that  unique  effect  of  the  antique  which  Goethe  sums  up  in  the 
words,  ‘ These  great  works  of  art  have  been  brought  about  in  the  same  wise  as  the 
operations  of  nature.  Everything  arbitrary,  everything  self-conscious,  disappears  : 
there  is  Necessity,  there  is  God.’  But  to  penetrate  into  the  whole  mystery  of  indi- 
viduality, and  to  learn  to  recognize  there  also  the  divine  necessity — this  was  reserved 
for  the  moderns. 


Berlin,  October  1893. 


A.  Furtwangler. 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE 


THE  task  of  editing  a book  like  the  present, 
which  has  been  received  almost  with  ac- 
clamation by  scholars  of  all  schools,  has 
been  a responsible  one,  and  I am  quite  conscious 
that  I may  have  succeeded  after  all  in  satisfying 
neither  the  student  nor  the  general  reader.  The  one, 
preoccupied  with  detail,  will  perhaps  complain  of  the 
omissions,  while  the  other,  in  search  only  of  a vivid 
impression,  may  be  repelled  by  the  length  and  depth. 
Two  main  alterations  in  the  plan  of  the  book  must 
be  noted  at  once : the  two  passages  treating  of 
archaic  art  (pp.  675 — 732,  pp.  250 — 257)  have  been 
omitted,  partly  owing  to  their  fragmentary  nature, 
and  partly  because  the  author  contemplates  the 
publication  of  a series  of  essays  upon  the  archaic 
art  of  Greece  in  which  these  his  first  sketches  will  be  worked  up  and  expanded.  In 
the  second  place,  the  long  and  difficult  chapter  on  the  temples  of  the  Akropolis 
(for  the  scholarly  translation  of  which  I am  indebted  to  Miss  Margaret  Alford) 
has  been  printed  as  an  Appendix,  for  it  seemed  best  not  to  interrupt  the  sequence 
of  the  artistic  inquiry  with  an  Essay  which,  though  it  bears  closely  upon  Pheidias, 
is  mainly  of  historical  and  topographical  interest.  For  the  rest,  I have  made 
it  my  aim,  as  far  as  possible,  to  disengage  the  author’s  arguments  from  all  such 
controversial  matter  as  might  cumber  or  obscure  them.  For  instance,  it  seemed 
to  me  that  the  claims  of  scholarship  would  be  fully  satisfied  if  the  numerous 
theories  put  forward  from  time  to  time  to  discredit  the  Pheidian  authorship  of 
the  Parthenon  sculptures,  or  the  fluctuations  of  opinion  with  regard  to  the  Kresilaian 
Diomede  or  the  Myronian  Perseus,  were  relegated  to  footnotes  which  should  provide 
the  learned  and  the  curious  with  all  necessary  references.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  Professor  Furtwangler  crosses  swords  with  champions  like  Dbrpfeld  on  the 
subject  of  the  ‘ Opisthodomos,’  or  Loschcke  on  the  date  of  the  Trial  and  Death  of 
Pheidias,  we  feel  that  contact  with  such  opponents’  arguments  strikes  fire  from  his 
own,  so  that  all  passages  of  this  kind  have  been  faithfully  preserved.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  chapters  on  the  ‘Venus  of  Milo’  and  the  ‘Apollo  of  the 
Belvedere,’  and  above  all  of  the  whole  Essay  on  the  Akropolis  temples,  for  here 


EDITOR’S  PREFACE 


xii 

again  argument  and  controversy  are  so  closely  interwoven  that  to  shorten  the 
latter  would  be  materially  to  weaken  the  former.  In  these  chapters,  therefore,  the 
only  alterations  are  those  that  have  been  introduced  by  the  author  himself.  These 
and  a number  of  smaller  omissions  and  additions  made  by  him  throughout  the  whole 
of  the  book  call  for  no  special  comment  ; they  will  be  easily  detected  and  appre- 
ciated by  the  reader  acquainted  with  the  original.  The  majority  were  necessitated 
either  by  subsequent  literature  or  by  subsequent  discovery.  The  portions  of  the 
German  edition  that  were  printed  as  1 Nachtrage  ’ have  been  inserted  in  their  proper 
place  in  the  text,  while  every  effort  has  been  made  to  give  references  to  the  literature 
that  has  appeared  since  the  publication  of  the  German  book  a year  ago.  In  my 
revision  of  the  translation  generally,  I have  ventured  upon  compression  wherever  this 
was  possible  without  injury  to  the  sense,  while  in  one  or  two  instances  I have  left 
rather  more  to  the  imagination  of  the  reader  than  is  usual  in  a German  work  of  this 
nature.  Thus,  after  the  exhaustive  analysis  of  the  forms  peculiar  to  Myron  given 
on  pp.  165—202,  it  seemed  unnecessary  to  repeat  them  in  detail,  in  the  case  of  each 
single  statue  or  head  which  the  author  in  a concluding  section  (XIII.)  has  grouped 
about  this  artist.  Professor  Furtwangler  has  himself  found  time  in  the  midst  of  his 
various  occupations  to  bestow  a general  supervision  upon  the  English  edition  ; nor  is 
it  necessary  to  say  that  no  editorial  alterations  have  been  introduced  without  his 
express  sanction,  while  not  a few  have  been  planned  in  consultation  with  him. 

The  number  of  illustrations,  which  in  the  portion  chosen  for  translation  was 
only  162  (including  the  plates),  has  been  raised  to  207.  These  45  fresh  illustrations 
have  been  selected  on  the  same  plan  as  that  already  pursued  by  the  author,  to  bring 
into  notice  new  or  almost  forgotten  monuments.  In  their  arrangement  I have  tried 
to  convince  the  reader  of  what  great  results  might  be  achieved  with  the  help  of  a 
collection  of  casts,  comprising  not  merely  a few  representative  works,  but  all  or  nearly 
all  the  extant  products  of  classical  art  whatever  their  period,  and  supplemented  by  a 
complete  series  of  photographs.  From  the  three  statues  reproduced  side  by  side  on 
page  87,  it  must  surely  appear  that  their  attribution  to  one  and  the  same  artist  is  no 
matter  of  guess-work  or  of  facile  intuition,  but  the  reasoned  result  of  such  a compara- 
tive study  of  form  as  is  possible  only  in  some  comprehensive  collection  of  casts  as  at 
Dresden  or  Munich.  In  like  manner  I trust  that  the  full  illustrations  in  the  chapter 
on  the  Amazons  (pp.  128 — 14 1)  will  enable  the  reader  to  take  in  at  a glance  less  obvious 
but  essential  differences  which,  when  we  have  only  memory  to  trust  to,  are  apt  to 
become  merged  and  hidden  in  external  resemblances  of  type  and  dress.  In  this 
connexion  my  thanks  are  due  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  and  to  Mr.  Astor  for 
allowing  the  finest  copy  in  existence  of  the  Polykleitan  Amazon  to  be  worthily 
published  (Plate  VIII.) 

I he  very  few  illustrations  which  in  the  German  edition  were  still  repeated  from 
former  publications  have  now  been  replaced  from  photographs — of  the  originals, 
wherever  this  was  possible,  or  at  any  rate  of  casts  when,  as  in  the  case  of  so  many 
Italian  galleries,  bad  lighting  and  other  causes  often  make  photography  impossible. 
The  Bologna  head  (Plate  III.)  has  again  been  reproduced  only  from  the  cast,  for  in 
spite  of  the  trouble  so  courteously  taken  by  the  Director  of  the  Museo  Civico,  Professor 
Brizio,  the  stained  condition  of  the  marble  has  made  it  impossible  to  obtain  a negative 


EDITOR’S  PREFACE 


xm 


sufficiently  good  for  reproduction  in  photogravure.  1 had  also  hoped  to  replace  the 
poor  illustration  of  the  once  celebrated  Hope  Athena  at  Deepclene  by  a plate  from 
the  original.  Having  failed,  however,  to  obtain  from  the  present  occupant  of  Dcepdene 
so  much  as  an  answer  to  my  applications  for  permission  to  photograph  the  statue, 
there  was  nothing  for  it  but  to  repeat  the  illustration  taken  from  the  Ancient  Specimens 
(Fig.  27).  In  the  matter  of  illustration  generally,  I have  to  thank  Mr.  A.  S.  Murray 
for  the  special  facilities  accorded  to  me  for  photographing  in  the  British  Museum, 
Mr.  Barclay  V.  Head  for  his  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  the  plate  of  coins  (VI.),  Dr. 
Paul  Herrmann  of  Dresden  for  the  fine  new  negatives  of  the  Lcmnia  (Plates  I.,  II.*, 
and  III.)  In  addition,  Herr  F.  Bruckmann  of  Munich  and  M.  A.  Giraudon  of  Paris 
have  generously  allowed  me  to  reproduce  a number  of  their  photographs.  Of  the  new 
plates  there  are  three  to  which  I should  like  to  call  special  attention  : the  superb  head 
from  Beneventum  in  the  Louvre  (Plate  XIV.),  which  should  rouse  us  to  a sense  of 
what  precious  relics  of  the  ancient  statuaria  may  still  lie  hidden  in  our  museums  ; 
the  ‘ Aberdeen  head,’  that  exquisite  fragment  in  our  own  British  Museum  which 
escaped  so  curiously  long  the  eye  of  both  connoisseurs  and  archaeologists,  and  in 
which  I think  it  not  too  bold  to  recognize  an  original  from  the  hand  of  Praxiteles 
(Plate  XVI 1 1.)  ; finally,  the  grand  and  presumably  original  head  of  the  Skopasian 
Meleager,  which,  though  it  has  already  been  well  reproduced  in  the  Antike  Denkmdler, 
deserves  to  become  known  amid  the  grace  of  its  Roman  surroundings  (Plate  XV.) 

By  the  courtesy  of  the  author  and  of  his  English  translator,  Mr.  James  F. 
Muirhead,  I have  been  enabled  to  refer  throughout  to  the  English  edition  of  Professor 
Helbig’s  Museums  of  Classical  Art  in  Rome,  and  I trust  that  this  book,  which  will 
appear  almost  simultaneously  with  the  present  one,  will  give  a fresh  impulse  to  the 
unprejudiced  study  of  the  treasures  of  those  Roman  galleries  to  which,  as  Professor 
Furtwangler  shows,  we  must  still  go  if  we  would  find  or  restore  the  ancient  ‘ master- 
pieces.’ The  late  Bishop  Wordsworth,  during  his  travels  in  Greece,  likened  the 
country,  from  the  point  of  view  of  what  remained  and  did  not  remain,  to  a manuscript 
torn  indeed  and  defaced,  but  ‘ not  yet,  like  Rome,  a palimpsest.’  Now  it  is  precisely 
this  fact  that  it  is  a palimpsest  that  still  secures  to  Rome  its  archaeological  pre- 
eminence, for,  with  the  exception  of  a fragment  recovered  of  late  years  here  and  there, 
the  record  which  we  are  trying  to  decipher  has  been  forgotten  or  destroyed  in  its 
native  land.  The  very  beauty  and  uniqueness  of  these  fragments  as  works  of  art 
blind  us  to  their  incompleteness  as  evidence,  but  if  we  wish  to  gain  some  idea  of 
the  whole  story  it  is  to  Rome  that  we  must  go,  and  there  accustom  ourselves 
to  spell  it  out  through  the  mistaken  interpretations  and  ignorant  glosses  of  the 
copyists. 

Per  casus  varios,  per  tot  discrimina  rerum 

Tendimus  in  Latium. 

But  it  would  be  an  error  to  suppose  that  Italy,  la  mere  savante  de  toute 
Renaissance,  is  only  fruitful  in  copies.  There  is  the  Ludovisi  throne — in  which  the 
infant  art  of  relief  seems  to  have  reached  at  a bound  the  limit  of  its  accomplishment— 
and  now  at  last  we  are  in  a position  to  place  side  by  side  with  the  Hermes  itself  an 
original  from  the  hand  of  the  master  whom  the  consent  of  ancient  connoisseurs 
ranked  with  Praxiteles.  In  archaeology,  unfortunately,  we  cannot  pick  and  choose  ; 


XIV 


EDITOR’S  PREFACE 


all  that  we  can  do  is  to  make  the  most  of  what  has  been  thrown  up  from  the  wreck 
of  Time,  but  ‘where  are  they  painted  that  are  lost?’  It  was  therefore  only  natural 
that  for  a time  at  least  we  should  regard  the  Hermes  as  supreme,  if  only  because  he 
was  solitary  ; yet  whoever  will  compare  him— soft,  self-involved,  with  lips  just  parting 
as  vague  voluptuous  languors  steal  over  him — -and  the  Meleager  of  Skopas,  with  that 
look  all  outward  and  upward  of  some  inspired  ‘ pilgrim  of  eternity,’  will  gain  some 
idea  of  what  we  must  have  lost  through  the  accidental  eclipse  of  this  great  genius. 

Lastly,  it  is  hoped  that  this  book,  as  it  exhibits  a picture,  will  also  discover 
a process.  Of  the  exact  nature  of  that  process  it  would  hardly  be  necessary  to 
speak,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  copiousness  and  brilliancy  of  the  achievements  of 
a single  critic  in  the  more  popular  field  of  Italian  art  have  thrown  us  in  England 
into  a state  of  naive  commotion  akin  to  that  of  the  ancient  Mexicans,  when,  having 
never  seen  a horse,  they  mistook  the  troopers  of  Cortes  for  a new  species  of  animal. 
For,  as  the  critic  in  question  never  appears  without  his  hobby,  the  two  coalesce,  as  it 
were,  in  our  imagination,  until  we  think  and  speak  of  that  which  is  nothing  but  the 
course  and  condition  of  all  fruitful  inquiry  as  if  it  were  the  honorific  appendage  of  a 
particular  name  and  the  abnormal  product  of  a particular  field.  On  the  contrary, 
the  present  book  is  from  first  to  last  an  example  of  the  inductive  method,  which, 
though  it  has  never  been  applied  before  on  so  extensive  a scale  to  the  art  of  Greece, 
is,  in  principle  at  least,  as  old  as  Winckelmann.  But  here  observation  and  com- 
parison do  not  end  in  themselves  ; they  rest  upon  a basis  of  history  and  philology, 
and  the  result  is  that  we  have  the  reproduction  of  a development,  not  merely  the 
recension  of  a catalogue. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  the  strength  and  flexibility  of  our  instrument 
are  often  strained  to  the  full  by  the  very  nature  of  the  material  it  works  in.  That 
material  is,  as  we  have  seen,  not  only  fragmentary  but  secondary,  while  the 
limitations  of  sculpture  as  an  art  betray  themselves  in  an  external  uniformity  which 
always  impedes,  and  sometimes  baffles,  our  analytic  research  of  variety.  If  observa- 
tion comes  upon  a gap,  theory  leaps  ahead,  like  a man’s  shadow  that  gets  in  front  of 
him  as  soon  as  he  begins  to  move  away  from  the  light.  Then  there  is  the  constant 
temptation  to  explain  too  much,  to  impose  a large  significance  upon  minute  features, 
as  to  which  we  might  say  in  words  borrowed  from  Johnson,  ‘the  dull  utterly  neglect 
them,  the  acute  see  a little,  and  supply  the  rest  with  fancy  and  conjecture.’  So  much 
for  the  defects  of  our  ‘ method.’  They  know  them  best  who  use  it  most  diligently 
and  most  skilfully  ; nor  would  there  be  any  occasion  to  insist  upon  them  at  all,  were 
it  not  for  the  numbers  of  those  to  whom,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  attitude  of 
barren  negation,  ‘ willing  to  wound  but  yet  afraid  to  strike,’  it  would  seem  as  if 
discretion  were  the  better  part  of  discovery. 

It  is  therefore  in  a double  aspect  as  matter  and  method  that  these  Essays  are 
now  offered  to  the  English  reader,  in  confidence  that  what  is  not  final  will  yet  be 
found  fruitful  ; and — - 

Was  fruchtbar  is/,  allein  is l ivahr. 


E.  S. 


November  19,  1894. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 


I.  P.  95  sqq. : Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo.  In  a letter  which  I received  a few  days 
ago,  Professor  Furtwangler  quotes  an  interesting  statement  made  by  Julius  Lange 
( Thorwaldsen , Fremstilling  cif  Mennesket,  p.  9),  to  the  effect  that  Canova  said  of  the 
Elgin  marbles  in  1803  that  only  one  single  antique  in  all  Rome  was  conceived  in  their 
grand  style — namely,  the  finer  of  the  two  Colossi  of  Monte  Cavallo.  I also  find  it 
stated  by  Memes,  Memoirs  of  Canova  (Edinburgh  1825),  p.  291,  that  ‘of  the  latter  (i.e. 
the  Colossi),  even  at  a subsequent  period  of  life,  he  (Canova)  made  a constant  morn- 
ing study  for  years,  in  relation  to  his  own  improvement,  and  to  establish  the  style  of 
Phidias  in  the  Elgin  Marbles l — E.  S. 

II.  P.  132,  1.  To  the  replicas  of  the  Kresilaian  Amazon  should  be  added  a head 
in  the  Jacobsen  Collection  (1073  a ),  poor  and  much  restored,  but  of  value  as  having  on 
the  right  side,  in  the  line  of  the  ear  and  near  the  crown,  the  remains  of  a rectangular 
support,  which  once  connected  the  head  with  the  right  wrist  ; this  confirms  the  restor- 
ation proposed  on  p.  132.  The  head  may  possibly  be  identical  with  Michaelis  0. 

III.  P.  346 seq.  : The  Aberdeen  Head.  Lord  Stanmore  has  the  kindness  to  inform 
me  that  it  is  certain  the  head  came  direct  from  Greece,  and  adds  : ‘ All  the  fragments 
my  father  brought  with  him  from  thence  were  placed  together  by  themselves,  and  this 
head  was  among  them.’ — E.  S. 


ERRATA. 

Page  29,  line  4 from  foot  of  page  (text ),for  ‘ 473  ’ read  1 470.’ 
,,  42,  lines  7,  10,  and  1 lHor  1 archaic  1 read  ‘ archaistic.’ 

„ 78,  line  9,  for  ‘ Romani  ’ read  ‘ Romano.1 

,,  84,  note  1,  line  3,  for  ‘bust  ’ read  ‘best.’ 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PHEIDIAS i 

I.  Discovery  of  the  Lemnian  Athena 4 

II.  Site  of  the  Lemnia  on  the  Akropolis. — Date  and  Dedication 8 

III.  Comparison  between  Lemnia  and  Partpienos  10 

IV.  Analysis  of  the  Lemnia 13 

V.  Drapery  and  Pose  of  the  Lemnia 21 

VI.  Monuments  related  to  Lemnia  and  to  Parthenos. — The  Athena  Promachos  . 26 

VII.  The  Olympian  Zeus. — Trial  and  Death  of  Pheidias 36 

VIII.  Other  Works  related  to  the  Lemnia. — The  Master  of  Pheidias.— Early 

Pheidian  Works. — The  Anakkeon.- — Pheidian  Eros  and  Aphrodite  ....  50 

IX.  Pheidias  and  his  Pupils. — Alkamenes  and  Agorakritos 73 

X.  The  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo,  and  the  Elder  Praxiteles . . 95 

XI.  Pheidian  Influences  in  Sicily  and  Magna  Graecia. — Coins  and  Vases  ...  104 

KRESILAS  AND  MYRON 113 

I.  Literary  and  Epigraphical  Evidence  for  the  Life  of  Kresilas 115 

II.  The  Portrait  of  Perikles 117 

III.  The  Diitrephes 122 

IV.  The  Amazon 128 

V.  The  Athena  from  Velletri 141 

VI.  The  Diomede  146 

VII.  The  Medusa  Rondanini l5^ 

VIII.  Statue  of  an  Athlete  at  Petworth 161 

IX.  Relation  of  Kresilas  to  Myron. — The  Riccardi  Head. — -The  Diskobolos  and 

kindred  Heads. — Pythagoras  of  Rhegium. — Myronian  Portrait-heads  . . 165 

X.  Statues  by  Myron. — Diskobolos  and  Marsyas  compared. — Kindred  Works  . . 180 

XI.  The  ‘Cassel  Apollo.’ — Argive  Influences  traceable  in  Myron 190 

XII.  The  Perseus  r97 

XIII.  Myronian  Female  Head. — The  Herakles  Altemps  and  Kindred  Works. — 

Asklepios  in  the  Uffizi 202 

XIV.  The  Munich  Zeus  and  the  First  Argive  School 212 


CONTENTS 


XVII 


PACE 

POLYKLETTOS  . 221 

I.  Historical  and  Epigraphical  Evidence 223 

II.  The  Doryphoros 226 

III.  The  Diadumenos 238 

IV.  The  Amazon 247 

V.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Kyniskos. — Statue  of  a Boy  placing  a Wreath 

on  his  Head,  and  Kindred  Works 249 

VI.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Pythoki.es.  — Statue  of  a Boy  in  Dresden  : its 

Adaptations  and  Derivatives 262 

VII.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Xenokles. — The  Idolino 279 

VIII.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Aristion. — The  later  Polykleitan  School. — 

The  Beneventum  Head 287 

SKOPAS.  PRAXITELES.  EUPHRANOR 293 

I.  Skopas.—  Lansdowne  Herakles. — Hermes  from  the  Palatine. — Statues  with 

foot  raised. — Ares  Ludovisi. — The  Meleager. — Athena 296 

II.  Praxiteles. — Date  of  the  Hermes. — Works  of  the  Artist’s  Early  and 

Middle  Period. — Figures  Leaning  on  a Support. — The  Satyr  and  the 
Eubouleus. — Works  of  the  Artist’s  Later  Period  ; the  Hermes  and 
Kindred  Statues 307 

III.  Euphranor. — Imitation  of  Polykleitos  and  of  the  older  Argive  Types. — 

Bonus  Eventus  ; Dionysos  ; Apollo  Patroos  ; Paris  and  Aphrodite  ; 
Athena. — Lysippos 348 

THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 365 

I.  The  Lost  Inscribed  Fragment  : Discussion  of  the  Statue’s  Provenance  . . 367 

II.  Restoration  of  the  Statue 378 

III.  Influences  that  affected  the  Artist  of  the  ‘Venus.’ — Skopas. — Historical 

Position  of  the  Venus 384 

THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 403 

APPENDIX— THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 413 

I.  The  ‘Old  Temple’  of  Athena  415 

II.  The  First  Parthenon 419 

III.  The  Parthenon  of  Perikles 423 

IV.  The  Erechtheion 432 

V.  The  Temple  of  Athena  Nike 442 

VI.  The  Meaning  of  the  Pedimentai.  Sculptures  of  the  Parthenon 45 1 

VII.  The  PIarth  Goddess  entreating  for  Rain,  near  the  Parthenon 468 


INDEX 


473 


Note. — A number  of  the  plates  of  the  German 
edition  are  now  reproduced  as  text-blocks , while 
for  some  of  the  text-illustrations  of  the  German 
book  plates  have  here  been  substituted.  Those 
illustrations , whether  plates  or  text-blocks,  which 
are  completely  foreign  to  the  German  edition, 
and  now  appear  for  the  first  time,  are  marked 
by  an  asterisk  (*). 


LIST  OF  FULL-PAGE  PLATES 


PLATE  PAGE 

I.  Statue  of  Athena,  Dresden  ( Giesecke  and  Devrient , Leipzig)  Frontispiece. 

II.  Statue  of  Athena,  with  Cast  of  Bologna  Head,  Dresden  {Do.) S 

*11*.  Statue  of  Athena  in  Dresden  (from  the  cast)  ( Do .) 12 

III.  Head  in  Bologna  (from  the  cast)  {Do.) 16 

*1V.  Bearded  Head,  Louvre  (Maison  A.  Braun, Chhnent  CrCie.,  Paris  and  Dornach) 90 

*V.  PIead  of  a Youth  from  Parthenon  Frieze,  British  Museum  {Giesecke  and  Devrient , 

Leipzig) 96 

*VI.  Greek  Coins  {Autotype  Co.) 106 

I,  3,  5,  6.  Thurii. — 2.  Sybaris. — 4.  Neapolis. — 7.  Terina. — 8,  10.  Pandosia. — 9.  Hyria. — 

II.  Neapolis.  — 12-15.  Syracuse.  — 16,  17.  Naxos. — 18.  Herakleia. — 19.  Phokaia. — 20. 

Lokri  Epizephyrii.- — 21.  Roman  denarius. — 22,23.  Elis. — 24,25.  Amphipolis. — 26.  Miletos. 

— 27-29.  Klazomenai. — 30,  31.  Athens. — 32,  33.  Argos. — 34,  36.  Alexandria  Troas. — 

35.  Heraia. — 37.  Coin  of  Antoninus  Pius. — 38.  Corinth. 

VII.  Portrait  of  Perikles,  British  Museum  {Giesecke  and  Devrient,  Leipzig) 118 

*VI1I.  Amazon,  Lansdowne  House  (Do.)  134 

IX.  Head  of  Perseus,  British  Museum  (Do.  ) 138 

X.  Head  of  a Diadumenos,  Dresden  (Full  Face)  (A.  Frisch,  Berlin) 240 

XI.  Head  of  a Diadumenos,  Dresden  (Profile)  (Do.)  242 

XII.  Statue  of  a Boy,  Dresden  (Do.)  266 

XIII.  Bronze  Statuette,  Louvre  (Giesecke  and  Devrient,  Leipzig) 280 

XIV.  Bronze  Head  of  a Boy,  Louvre  ( Maison  A.  Braun,  Clement  cr=  Cie.,  Paris  and  Dornach)  290 

"'XV.  Head  of  Meleager,  placed  upon  a Praxitelean  Apollo,  Villa  Medici  (Do.)  306 

*XVI.  Head  of  Eubouleus,  Athens  (Do.  ) 330 

XVII.  Aphrodite,  Collection  of  Lord  Leconfield  (F.  Hollyer , London) 344 

XVIII.  The  ‘Aberdeen’  Head,  British  Museum  (Giesecke  and  Devrient,  Leipzig)  346 


LIST  OF  TEXT 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


FIGURE 

1.  Athena  on  Gem  (Cades,  i.  H,  17)  . . . . 

2.  Athena  from  an  Attic  vase  ( Elite  dram. 

i.  80) 

*3.  Profile  of  the  Bologna  head.  (From  a 
photograph  after  the  original)  .... 
*4.  Athena  on  a relief  from  the  Akropolis  . . 
*5.  Statuette  of  Athena  from  the  Akropolis. 

(From  a drawing)  

6.  ‘Torso  Medici.’  (Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts, 

Paris)  

*7.  Niobid  from  the  disc  in  the  British  Museum. 

(From  a drawing)  

*8.  Statue  of  Apollo  in  Museo  delle  Terme 

(Rome) 

*9.  Head  of  Apollo  in  Museo  delle  Terme  . . 

10.  Bronze  Apollo  of  the  Mantuan  type  from 

Pompeii,  Naples 

11.  Terminal  bust  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  : 

a,  from  the  original  ; b,  from  the  cast 

12.  Head  in  Palazzo  Barberini,  Rome  .... 

13.  Terminal  bust  in  the  collection  at  Broad- 

lands  

14.  Head  in  the  Collection  Barracco  (Rome). 

(By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann, 
Munich) 

15.  Head  in  the  Hermitage 

16.  Terminal  bust  of  Athena  from  Hercula- 

neum (Naples) 

*17.  The  ‘ Anakreon  Borghese  ’ (Ny  Carlsberg 

Glyptothek,  Copenhagen) 

*18.  Head  with  winged  fillet,  Museo  Torlonia, 
Rome.  (From  a drawing) 

19.  Head  in  the  Museo  Chiaramonti  (Vatican) 

20.  Double  terminal  bust  in  Madrid 

21.  Profiles  of  the  double  terminal  bust  . . 

22.  Cameo  in  Berlin 

23.  Statue  formerly  in  Pal.  Cepparelli  (Florence) 

*24.  Statuette  of  Aphrodite  (Berlin) 

25.  Two  heads  of  Athena  from  casts  in  Dresden: 

«,  from  a lost  original;  b,  head  of  Athena 
Farnese  (Naples) 

26.  Athena  Farnese  (Naples) 

27.  Hope  Athena  in  the  collection  at  Deep- 

dene,  Surrey.  (From  Spec,  of  Anc. 
Sculpture ) 

28.  Profile  of  the  head  of  Athena  (a,  25) 

29.  Athena  in  the  Villa  Albani,  Rome  . . . 


6 

3°- 

14 

Si- 

32. 

18 

22 

33- 

34- 

23 

*35- 

*36. 

28 

*37- 

38. 

44 

50 

39- 

5i 

40. 

52 

41. 

54 

42. 

56 

43- 

58 

44- 

59 

45- 

59 

*46. 

61 

47- 

48. 

63 

49. 

50. 

64 

65 

5i- 

67 

68 

*52. 

69 

70 

53- 

7i 

54- 

72 

74 

*55- 

*56. 

75 

57- 

77 

79 


Head  of  Athena  Albani.  (From  the 

cast) 

Plead  in  Munich  ....  

Plead  of  ITerakles  (Berlin) 

Torso  of  Herakles,  Louvre.  (From  a pho 

tograph  by  A.  Giraudon) 

Plead  of  a goddess  (Berlin) 

‘ Ceres  ’ in  the  Rotonda  of  the  Vatican  . . 

Apollo  Barberini  (Munich) 

Athena  in  Capitoline  Museum 

Conjectural  restoration,  showing  the  torso 
in  Cassel  combined  with  the  head  of  the 

Hephaistos  Chiaramonti 

Plead  in  Brescia.  (By  permission  of  Messrs 

Bruckmann,  Munich) 

Head  of  Ares,  Louvre.  (From  a photo 

graph  by  A.  Giraudon) 

Ares  in  the  Pal.  Borghese  (Rome)  . . . 
The  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo.  (From  th 

cast) 

Head  in  the  Jacobsen  collection  at  Copen 
hagen.  (By  permission  of  Messrs 
Bruckmann,  Munich)  .... 

Head  in  the  Louvre 

‘Jupiter  de  Versailles’  (Louvre) 

Terminal  bust  of  Perikles  in  the 
Museum.  (From  the  original) 

Head  of  a strategos  (Berlin)  . . 
White-faced  Lekythos  (Bibl.  Nat., 

Gem  in  Berlin  (slightly  enlarged) 

‘ Gladiatore  Farnese  ’ in  Naples 
restorations  are  omitted)  . . . 
Alkibiades  in  the  Vatican.  (Attempt  at  a 
reconstruction  ; old  restorations  omitted 
Amazon  in  Villa  Doria-Pamfili.  (Wrongly 

restored  as  an  Artemis) 

Amazon  of  the  Capitoline  type.  (Re 

stored) 

Amazon  head  of  the  Capitoline  type, 
wrongly  placed  on  the  Mattei  statue  in 
the  Vatican.  (From  the  cast)  .... 
Head  of  Amazon  in  Lansdowne  House. 

(From  the  original) 

Amazon  type.  (Attempt  at  a restoration) 
Bronze  terminal  bust  of  an  Amazon  from 
Herculaneum  (Naples).  (By  permis- 
sion of  Messrs.  Bruciunann,  Munich)  . . 


British 


Paris) 


(The 


So 

81 

83 

85 

86 
87 
87 
87 


88 

9i 

93 

94 


101 

103 

104 

1 19 

121 

124 

124 

125 
127 
129 

132 

133 

135 

138 

139 


XXII 


LIST  OF  TEXT  ILLUSTRATIONS 


FIGURE  PAGE 

58.  ‘ Pallas  de  Velletri  ’ (Paris) 142 

59.  Head  of  Athena  from  Velletri  ....  143 

60.  Diomede  in  Munich.  (From  a cast  with 

the  modern  restorations  omitted)  . . . 147 

61.  Head  of  the  Munich  Diomede.  (From  the 

cast) 15° 

62.  Cast  at  Dresden  of  a replica  of  the  Dio- 

mede. (Original  presumably  in  Eng- 
land)   1 5 1 

63.  The  Medusa  Rondanini  (Munich)  ...  157 

64.  Profile  of  an  athlete  (Petworth  Coll.)  . . 162 

65.  Head  of  an  athlete  (Petworth  Coll.)  . . 163 

66.  Head  of  a hero  (Palazzo  Riccardi,  Florence)  166 

67.  Replica  of  the  Riccardi  head  (Berlin)  . . 167 

68.  Head  of  Diskobolos  (Catajo) 169 

69.  Head  of  Diskobolos  (Berlin)  17° 

70.  Head  from  Perinthos  (Dresden)  ....  1 7 1 

71.  Head  in  the  collection  at  Ince  Blundell 

Hall  (Lancashire) 172 

72.  Head  in  Brescia.  (By  permission  of  Messrs. 

Bruckmann,  Munich) 174 

73.  Portrait-head  in  the  Villa  Albani.  (From 

the  cast) 176 

74.  Portrait-head  in  the  Hermitage.  (From 

the  original) 1 7 7 

75.  Herakles  in  the  British  Museum  ....  179 

76.  Mercury  in  the  Vatican 183 

77-  Statue  restored  as  Neptune  (Vatican)  . . 185 

78.  Head  of  a god  (Berlin) 187 

79-  Statue  restored  as  Asklepios  (Plermitage)  1S9 

80.  Apollo  of  the  ‘ Cassel  type’  (Louvre)  . . 192 

81.  Plead  of  Apollo 193 

82.  Apollo  head  of  ‘ Cassel  type  ’ in  Barracco 

Collection  (Rome) 195 

83.  Plead  of  Perseus  (Rome) 198 

84.  Female  head  in  Giardino  Boboli  (Florence). 

(By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann, 
Munich) 203 

85.  Head  in  Museo  Chiaramonti 205 

86.  Head  in  the  British  Museum  206 

87.  Asklepios  in  the  Uffizi  (Florence)  . . . 207 

88.  Asklepios  and  Hygieia  in  Palazzo  Barberini 

(Rome)  208 

89.  Terminal  bust  in  the  British  Museum  . . 21 1 

90.  Statue  in  Munich 213 

91.  Head  of  statue  in  Munich 216 

92.  Replica  of  the  head  of  the  statue  by  Ste- 

phanos   217 

93.  Bronze  statuette  in  British  Museum  . . 232 

94.  Mercury,  Coll.  Oppermann  (Bibl.  Nat. , 

Paris) 233 

93.  Head  of  Herakles.  From  Herculaneum 

(Naples) 234 

96.  Head  of  Herakles.  From  the  collection 

at  Broadlands  (Hampshire) 235 

97.  Polykleitan  statue  in  Coll.  Barracco  (Rome). 

(By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann)  . 237 

98.  Diadumenos  in  Madrid 241 

99.  Statue  of  a boxer  (Cassel) 246 

100.  Greek  gem 248 

ioj.  Carnelian  in  St.  Petersburg 248 


FIGURE  PAGE 


102.  Statue  of  a victorious  boy  placing  the 

wreath  on  his  head.  (Restored)  . . . 250 

103.  Head  of  boy  (in  possession  of  Sir  Edgar 

Vincent)  251 

104.  Head  of  a boy.  (Hermitage) 252 

105.  Back  of  the  Westmacott  athlete  (British 

Museum) 253 

106.  Figure  from  Ildefonso  group  (Madrid)  . . 256 

107.  Athlete  in  the  collection  at  Petworth  House  258 

108.  Apoxyomenos  on  a gem 261 

109.  Apoxyomenos  on  a gem  (Hermitage)  . 262 

1 10.  Basis  of  the  statue  of  Pytholdes  in  Olympia  263 
hi.  Athlete  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo  (Vatican)  . 264 

1 12.  Head  of  the  boy’s  statue  in  Dresden. 

(From  the  cast) 267 

1 13.  Statue  of  a youth  (Hermitage) 269 

114.  Youthful  Pan  (Leyden). 271 

1 1 5-  The  ‘ Narkissos  ’ (Berlin) 273 

116.  Bronze  statuette  (Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris)  . . . 276 

1 1 7.  Gem  (Cades,  ii.  D,  16) 277 

1 18.  Basis  of  Zenoldes  in  Olympia 279 

1 19.  Bronze  statuette  in  the  Louvre  (back)  . . 280 


120.  Athlete  in  Galleria  delle  Statue  (Vatican)  281 

121.  Bronze  head  from  Herculaneum  (Naples)  284 

122.  Head  of  the  Idolino  (Mus.  Naz. , Florence)  285 


123.  Basis  of  Aristion  in  Olympia 288 

124.  Hermes  in  Lansdowne  House 289 

125.  Herakles  in  Lansdowne  House  ....  297 

126.  Heroic  statue  (British  Museum)  ....  298 

127.  Statuette  of  Zeus  (British  Museum)  . . . 299 

128.  Bronze  statuette  of  Asklepios  (Carlsruhe)  300 

129.  Hermes  from  the  Palatine  (Museo  delle 

Terrne) 301 

"130.  Statue  of  Athena  in  the  Uffizi 306 

1 3 1 . Satyr  in  Dresden 310 

132.  Head  of  Satyr  in  Dresden 31 1 

133.  Eros  from  the  Palatine  (Louvre)  ....  313 

134.  Eros  in  Naples 314 

135.  Head  of  Eros  of  Centocelle  (Vatican)  . . 315 

136.  ‘ Venus  d’Arles  ’ (Louvre) 320 

137.  The  ‘ Townley  Venus  ’ (Brit.  Mus.)  . . . 321 

138.  Statue  in  Louvre.  (From  Clarac,  Mus. 

de  Sc.  PI.  341) 323 

139.  Artemis  in  Dresden 324 

140.  Head  of  Artemis  (Dresden) 325 

*141.  Statuette  of  Artemis,  from  Kition  in  Cyprus  327 
*142  Attic  statuette  vase . 333 

143.  Head  in  Pal.  Pitti  (Florence) 335 

144.  Hermes  in  the  Uffizi 339 

145.  Herakles  in  Villa  Albani  . . ...  340 

146.  Herakles  with  Telephos  (Mus.  Chiara- 

monti)   341 

147.  Head  of  Herakles  (Chiaramonti)  ....  342 

148.  Profile  of  Aphrodite  in  the  collection  of 

Lord  Leconfield 344 

149.  Carnelian  in  the  British  Museum  ....  350 

150.  Dionysos  from  Tivoli  (Museo  delle  Terme)  351 

151.  Bronze  statue  of  Apollo  (Brit.  Mus. ) . . 352 

152.  Statue  in  Dresden 352 

153.  Apollo  ( ‘ Adonis  ’),  Vatican 355 

*154.  Paris  in  Lansdowne  House 358 


LIST  OF  TEXT  ILLUSTRATIONS 


xxm 


FIGURE  PAGE 

*155.  Torso  of  Aphrodite  (Naples)  ....  358 
*156.  ‘The  Faun  of  Winckelmann  ’ (Munich).  360 
*157.  Athena  Giustiniani  (Braccio  Nuovo, 

Vatican) 362 

158.  Venus  of  Milo  (with  plinth  unrestored)  . 370 

159.  Drawing  by  Debay  showing  the  inscribed 

block  adjusted  to  the  plinth 371 

160.  Ground-plan  and  projection  of  the  plinth, 

with  restorations  indicated 372 

16 1 . Side  view  of  the  extant  plinth 373 

162.  Side  view  of  the  plinth.  (Restoration 

indicated  by  dotted  lines) 374 

*163.  Proposed  restoration  of  the  Venus  of  Milo  380 

164.  Aphrodite  on  a gem  (Berlin) 380 

165.  Bronze  Aphrodite  (Dresden) 381 

166.  Statue  in  Dresden 382 

167.  Bronze  coin  of  the  island  of  Melos  (Berlin)  382 

168.  Relief  from  a column  in  Melos 383 

169.  Aphrodite  with  the  apple.  Terra-cotta 

from  Myrina  (Berlin) 383 

170.  Venus  of  Capua  (Naples) 385 

171.  Plead  of  Venus  of  Capua  .......  389 

172.  Plead  in  Palazzo  Caetani  (Rome)  ....  390 
*173.  Head  in  the  Capitol.  (From  the  cast)  . 393 


FIGURE  . PAGE 

*174.  Plead  from  Tralles  in  Smyrna.  (From 

the  cast  at  Bonn) 397 

175.  Statue  in  Pal.  Valentini  (Rome)  ....  398 

176.  Statue  in  Pal.  Valentini.  (Restorations 

omitted) 399 

177.  Head  of  Apollo  (Brit.  Mus.) 411 

*178.  The  four  great  temples  of  Athena  on 

the  Akropolis 417 

*179.  Kalathiskos  dancers  on  either  side  of  Pal- 
ladium. Terra-cotta  plaque  (Berlin)  . 438 
“180.  Archaistic  Artemis  from  Gabii  (Munich) . 440 


1 8 1 . Left-hand  corner  of  the  south  frieze  of  the 

Temple  of  Athena  Nike.  (From  Lebas, 
Voyage  A rchtol. ) 446 

182.  Portion  of  the  north  frieze  of  the  Temple 

of  Nike.  (From  Lebas,  Voyage  Archlol.)  447 
*183.  Western  pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  show- 


ing the  traces  on  the  floor  of  the  pedi- 
ment   454 

*184.  Eastern  pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  show- 
ing the  traces  on  the  floor  of  the  pedi- 
ment   464 

185.  Attic  seal 469 

186.  Two  bronze  coins  of  Krannon 469 


INITIAL  AND  TAIL-PIECES. 


PAGE 

Profile  of  ‘Venus  d’Arles  ’ (Louvre)  . title-page 


Bronze  Pan  (Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris)  . vii 

Profile  of  Skopasian  Meleager  (Villa  Medici)  . . xi 

Eros  on  Parthenon  frieze 3 

Marsyas  in  Lateran  115 

Doryphoros  in  Naples 223 


Satyr  in  Capitol 295 

Head  of  Venus  of  Milo 367 

Apollo  of  Belvedere 405 

Ganymede  in  Vatican  4 1 5 

Reliefs  from  Ludovisi  throne  (Rome) 487 


PH  El  DIAS 


PHEIDIAS 


OF  the  works  of  those  sculptors  whom  antiquity 
esteemed  as  its  greatest,  one  masterpiece,  the 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles,  has  come  down  to  our 
times  in  the  undoubted  original,  while  others,  such  as  the 
Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos  and  the  Apoxyomenos  of  Lysip- 
pos,  are  known  to  us  in  good  and  faithful  copies,  executed 
probably  on  the  scale  of  the  originals.  But  Pheidias,  most 
famous  of  all  who  wrought  the  images  of  the  gods,  is 
represented  so  far  neither  by  any  ascertained  original  nor 
by  any  efficient  copy.  For  of  only  two  of  his  works, 
the  Olympian  Zeus  and  the  Athena  Parthenos,  do  we 
possess  reproductions  acknowledged  to  be  such  : the  Zeus 
is  reproduced  chiefly  on  coins,  and  the  Athena  in  statues 
and  statuettes,  so  much  reduced  in  size  that  they  are  rather 
abstracts  or  resumes  than  real  transcripts ; they  differ 
totally  from  the  faithful  copies  alluded  to  above.  Though 
sufficient  to  give  a general  notion  of  the  composition, 
of  the  arrangement  and  fall  of  the  drapery,  they  are  inadequate  for  all  finer  dis- 
tinctions. Above  all  they  give  no  exact  idea  of  the  head,  which,  as  being  the  seat  of 
intellectual  life,  is  naturally  of  the  highest  interest.  The  various  replicas  exhibit 
differences  so  marked  as  to  convey  the  impression  that  not  one  of  them  is  accurate. 
And  this  is  very  natural,  for  the  head  of  a colossal  statue  in  ivory  and  gold  must 
have  offered  unusual  difficulties  to  the  copyist.  Those  who  had  access  to  the 
original  itself  could  only  make  drawings  or  small  models,  and  in  so  doing  each 
artist  would  follow  his  own  style.  Other  and  freer  imitations  of  widely  varying 
dimensions  were  derived  from  these  sketches.  It  is  small  wonder,  then,  that  the 
finer  modelling  of  the  head  of  the  Parthenos  has  been  lost  to  us  in  spite  of  its 
numberless  reproductions. 

Yet  even  if  we  possessed  an  exact  copy  of  the  head  of  the  Parthenos  or  of  the 
Zeus  in  the  original  size,  I do  not  believe  that  we  should  thus  gain  a complete  conception 
of  the  best  that  Pheidias  could  achieve.  An  artist  cannot  show  the  finest  and  most 
spiritual  qualities  of  his  treatment  of  form  in  a colossal  head.  Besides,  the  complicated 
ivory  and  gold  technique  must  have  placed  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of  free  artistic 
conception.  An  artist  was  much  less  trammelled  in  executing  the  clay  model  for  a 
bronze  statue,  and  even  Pheidias  must  have  found  in  this  technique  a purer  and  more 
exquisite  medium  for  his  genius. 

Bronze  statues  by  famous  artists  were  usually,  when  of  normal  dimensions,  copied 
in  the  original  size.  The  copyists  probably  made  use  of  casts,1  which  was  of  course 

1 The  passage  in  Lucian  ( Jup . Trag.  33)  concerning  the  Hermes  Agoraios  in  Athens  shows  that  it  was  quite 
usual  for  artists  to  take  casts  of  famous  works  of  art. 


4 


PHEIDIAS 


impossible  in  the  case  of  gold  and  ivory  images.  Yet  even  so  copyists  allowed  them- 
selves a freedom  which  occasionally  amounted  to  almost  complete  remodelling  of 
details.  Nevertheless,  copies  exist  which  can  be  proved  to  be  perfectly  accurate.  Such 
a copy  of  a bronze  work  by  Phcidias  would  be  the  first  step  towards  an  exact  appre- 
ciation of  his  artistic  personality. 

I.  Discovery  of  the  Lemnian  Athena. 

It  is  this  need — this  deficiency  in  our  knowledge — which,  I believe,  I have  been 
able  to  fill.  The  two  statues  reproduced  on  Plates  I.  and  II.  can  be  shown  to  be  faith- 
ful replicas  of  a bronze  work  by  Pheidias — a work  which  ancient  connoisseurship 
preferred  to  all  others  by  the  artist,  which  roused  the  enthusiasm  of  the  subtle 
critic  Lucian,  and  which  even  the  matter-of-fact  Pausanias  admits  to  be  the  best 
worth  seeing  of  all  the  creations  of  Pheidias.  This  work  is  the  Lemnian  Athena. 

The  two  statues  belong  to  the  Dresden  Museum,  and  have  long  been  known  : 
one  of  them  had  a head  foreign  to  it,  while  the  head  of  the  other,  though  genuine, 
was  disguised  by  inaccurate  restoration.  The  statue  given  on  PI.  I.  is  published  in 
Becker’s  Augusteum,  i.  PL  14,  and  in  Clarac’s  Muse'e  de  Sculpt.  PI.  464,  868.  The 
head  is  antique,  but  has  been  broken  and  put  on  again.  The  whole  upper  part  of 
the  head,  from  the  fillet,  is  restored  ; an  ugly  modern  helmet  was  formerly  placed  upon 
it.  In  1894  Becker  pronounced  that  it  was  impossible  to  decide  with  certainty  whether 
the  head  belonged  to  the  statue  or  not.1  On  the  other  hand,  L.  Schorn  (1822), 2 while 
acknowledging  that  the  head  had  been  joined  on  again  and  the  face  worked  over, 
added  that  there  was  nothing  to  prove  that  it  might  not  have  belonged  to  the  statue. 
Hettner,  in  his  catalogue  of  the  Dresden  antiques,3  declared  that  the  correspondence 
of  the  marble,  and  the  fact  that  the  turn  of  the  head  fitted  the  remaining  portion  of  neck, 
showed  the  head  to  be  genuine.  More  recently  it  was  recognized  by  Flasch  that  the 
head  was  a replica  of  the  beautiful  Bologna  head  which  Conze4  had  published  as  that  of 
a young  man,  while  Flasch  5 had  interpreted  it  as  an  Amazon.  It  was  accordingly 
taken  for  granted  that  the  head  did  not  belong  to  the  statue,0  and  therefore,  when  Treu 
began  his  admirable  and  useful  task  of  freeing  the  Dresden  statues  from  their  modern 
restorations,  he  removed  the  head  from  the  statue,  set  it  up  separately,  and  restored  it 
from  the  Bologna  replica — i.e.  he  took  away  the  helmet,  and  supplied  the  place  of  the 
missing  upper  part  of  the  head  by  a cast  taken  from  the  Bologna  head. 

The  statue  and  the  head  were  thus  separated  when  I saw  them  in  1891.  At  first 
it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  they  might  belong  together.  It  was  only  in  the  course  of 
a protracted  inquiry  into  the  type  of  head  appropriate  to  this  statue  of  Athena  that, 
to  my  own  great  astonishment,  I came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  head  which  had 
been  removed  actually  did  belong  to  the  statue,  and  that  consequently  the  Bologna 
head  also  represented  Athena,  and  came  from  another  replica  of  the  same  statue. 
The  portion  of  neck  still  attached  to  the  torso  and  turned  vigorously  to  the  right,  as 
well  as  the  shape  of  the  nude  part  of  the  chest,  answered  down  to  the  minutest  details 
to  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  Bologna  bust.  Further,  head  and  torso  are  of  the 
same  marble.  Probability  became  certainty  when  Treu,  at  my  request,  placed  the 

1 Augusteum , i.  p.  95.  2 In  Botticher’s  Amaltkea,  ii.  206  sqq. 

3 Bildwerk e d.  Koniglichen  Antikensammlung , 4th  ed.  No.  69. 

4 Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  d.  Griechischen  Plastik,  Taf.  I.  p.  1.  Cf.  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabgiisse,  519. 

5 Bull.  d.  Inst.  1872,  66.  Brizio  declared  the  head  to  be  modern  ( ibid.  p.  65  ; cf.  Heydemann,  Mittheilungen 
aus  den  Antikensammlungen , in  Ober-  u.  Mittelitaliens,  p.  60,  206),  but  was  immediately  refuted  by  Flasch. 

6 Cf.  Puchstein  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  p.  96,  note  36. 


DISCOVERY  OF  THE  LEMNIAN  ATHENA 


5 

head  upon  the  torso  ; the  two  fitted  together  fracture  for  fracture,  of  course  not  in 
front  where  the  edges  are  broken  off,  but  in  the  core  of  the  neck. 

PI.  I.  shows  the  statue  in  its  present  state.  The  missing  parts  in  front  of  the 
neck,  the  nose,  mouth,  and  upper  part  of  the  head  arc  restored  in  plaster.  The 
face,  as  Schorn  correctly  noticed,  has  been  worked  over,  and  has  lost  much  of  its  beauty 
in  the  process  ; but  the  hair,  as  far  as  it  is  preserved  in  the  marble — i.e.  the  portion 
under  the  fillet — is  uninjured,  and  corresponds  exactly  to  the  hair  of  the  Bologna 
head,  except  for  a few  variations  in  the  curls,  which  show  that  the  copyist  in  this 
case  was  rather  less  careful.  Yet  the  correspondence  between  these  two  copies 
is  more  exact  than  is  usual  in  antiquity,  and  goes  to  prove  that  each  is  a fairly 
accurate  rendering  of  a common  original. 

The  other  statue  (PI.  II.)  is  published  by  Clarac,  PI.  464,  866.1  The  head  was 
not  made  in  one  piece  with  the  body,  as  in  the  preceding  example,  but  was  worked 
separately  and  inserted,  with  the  nude  part  of  the  breast,  into  the  draped  torso. 
The  head  has  been  restored  by  using  up  an  antique  fragment  of  a replica  of  the 
head  of  the  Farnese  Athena  in  Naples,2  which,  placed  on  a hideous  thick  neck, 
looked  curious  enough  when  set  upon  the  statue.  This  restoration  has  now  been 
removed,  and  a cast  of  the  Bologna  bust  has  been  inserted  into  the  empty  space  cut 
out  in  the  torso.  PI.  II.  represents  the  statue  thus  restored.  The  Bologna  bust 
fitted  into  the  hollowed  torso,  as  exactly  as  if  it  had  been  made  for  it,  hardly  a 
millimetre  of  alteration  being  necessary.  This  bust  is  wonderfully  well  preserved,3 
the  only  injury  it  has  suffered  being  the  loss  of  the  eyes,  which  were  inserted 
separately.  The  exact  correspondence  of  the  hair  with  the  Dresden  head,  and  indeed 
the  remarkably  careful  execution  of  the  whole  work,  show  the  accuracy  of  the  copy. 
Rather  less  care  has  been  bestowed  upon  the  hair  above  and  behind  the  right  ear, 
the  head  being  so  much  turned  that  this  part  comes  at  the  back. 

The  right  breast  and  right  shoulder  of  this  statue  were  lost,  and  have  now  been 
restored  by  a piece  cast  from  the  other  figure  ; the  left  arm-stump,  likewise,  has  been 
added,  in  accordance  with  the  other  figure  where  it  is  antique.  The  bodies,  except  for 
a few  unimportant  variations,4  are  exact  replicas.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  statue 
reproduced  in  PI.  II.  deserves  the  preference  for  its  fresher  and  more  refined  workman- 
ship, though  it  is  evident  from  the  close  resemblance  of  the  body  to  that  of  PI.  II.  and 
of  the  head  to  the  Bologna  head  that  the  statue  on  PI.  I.  is  also  a very  careful  copy. 

A third  replica  in  the  Museum  of  Cassel  contributes  nothing  to  our  know- 
ledge of  the  original,  in  spite  of  its  careful  workmanship.  The  head  is  missing 
(it  is  replaced  by  a replica  of  the  Athena  Giustiniani),  and  the  body  is  not 
a copy,  but  a complete  transformation  of  the  original  of  the  two  Dresden  statues. 

1 Hettner,  Bildw.  No.  72.  A cast  of  it  is  in  Berlin,  Fried. -Wolters,  Gipsabg.  478.  Published  in  Sandrart, 
Teutsche  Academie,  ii.  (1679),  2,  ee,  as  being  in  the  Palace  Caesii  in  Rome. 

2 Published  in  Becker’s  Augusteum,  i.  cap.  15.  B.  Graf  (Aits  der  Anomia,  p.  65)  has  already  noticed 
that  it  belongs  to  a replica  of  the  Athena  Farnese. 

3 It  has  been  supposed  that  the  face  was  worked  over  in  modern  times  (Fried. -Wolters,  Gipsabg.  519)  (cf. 
Heydemann,  Mitt,  aus  d.  Antikens.  Ober-  it.  Mittelit aliens , p.  50).  After  repeated  examination  of  the  original 
I am  able  to  state  that  this  is  not  the  case,  though  it  is  true  that  in  certain  parts  acid  has  been  used  in  order  to 
remove  incrustation  (this  was  noticed  by  Brizio,  Bull.  d.  I.  1872,  65),  but  without  injuring  the  face  in  the  least. 

4 Slight  differences  are  to  be  observed  in  the  hair  and  tongue  of  the  Gorgoneion.  The  scales  of  the  aegis 
also  differ  slightly  : in  the  one  statue  (PI.  II.)  they  are  lighter,  flatter,  and  all  turned  downwards,  while  in  the 
other  (PI.  I.)  they  are  harder,  more  plastic,  and  do  not  all  follow  the  same  direction.  The  first  rendering  (PI.  II.) 
is  the  more  severe,  and  certainly  the  most  correct.  The  ends  of  the  snakes  knotted  in  front  also  vary  somewhat 
in  arrangement  in  the  two  statues.  [PI.  II.*  shows  the  left  side  of  the  statue  ; it  is  taken  from  the  cast  exhibited 
in  the  Pheidian  room  of  the  Dresden  Cast  Museum  ; the  body  is  that  of  statue  PI.  I.,  on  which  has  been  placed  a 
cast  of  the  Bologna  head. — E.  S.] 


6 


PHEIDIAS 


The  artist’s  aim  evidently  was  to  get  rid  of  the  severe  simplicity  of  the  folds,  and 
to  substitute  for  them  a rich  mass  of  petty  details  more  suited  to  later  taste.1 
This  copyist  shows  himself  unable  to  appreciate  the  greatness  of  the  older  manner  ; 
he  tried  to  correct  and  to  improve,  and  only  succeeded  in  becoming  feeble,  futile, 
and  artificial. 

There  is  still  another  copy  of  the  head  alone  (probably  part  of  a fifth  replica), 
in  the  Vatican.  The  head  is  set  on  a female  statue,  to  which  it  does  not  belong  ; 
it  was  once  a good  copy,  but  it  is  now  so  broken  and  restored  as  to  be  almost 
unrecognizable.2 

The  position  of  the  arms  in  the  original  can  be  made  out  from  the  Dresden 
statue  (PI.  I.)  The  left  upper  arm  is  raised  horizontally.  The  goddess  must  have 
held  with  her  left  hand  a lance  that  rested  on  the  ground.  The  right  upper  arm 
is  lowered,  but  it  is  plain  that  the  right  forearm  must  have  been  extended  somewhat 
forwards  and  sideways,  so  as  to  bring  the  right  hand  into  the  direction  towards 
which  the  goddess  is  looking. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  say  what  this  hand  held,  were  it  not  for  another  copy 
of  the  original,  which  is  fortunately  preserved  on  an  engraved  gem  (Fig.  i),3  and 
which  confirms  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner  our  reconstruction  of 
the  Dresden  statues.  It  is  quite  evident  that  both  statues  and  gem 
are  derived  from  the  same  original.  The  gem-cutter  has  copied,  as 
faithfully  as  was  possible  within  so  small  a space,  the  bare  head 
with  the  short  knotted -up  hair,  leaving  the  ear  free,  the  fillet, 
the  neck,  the  opening  of  the  drapery  on  the  breast,  even  the  folds 
falling  over  the  left  breast,  the  transverse  aegis,  and  the  raised  left 
upper  arm.  He  chose  to  represent  the  left  side  of  the  statue,  so  that 
the  breast  appears  somewhat  foreshortened,  and  the  head  in  profile  (cf.  PI.  II.) 
In  the  field  in  front  of  the  left  shoulder  is  a helmet.  Such  objects  on  gems  are 
never  mere  ‘ symbols  ’ as  they  are  on  coins,  therefore  I think  it  quite  certain  that 
the  artist,  who  had  not  room  in  the  picture  for  the  right  arm,  wished  at  least  to 
indicate  that  the  goddess  bore  a helmet  in  her  right  hand.  This  trait  completes 
our  conception  of  the  original  statue. 

The  composition  which  we  have  thus  won  back  had  been  brought  into  connexion 
with  Pheidias  even  before  its  design  was  thoroughly  clear.  L.  Schorn  4 was  the  first 
to  associate  the  statue  with  the  Athena  Parthenos  of  Pheidias,  of  which  at  that  time 
no  copies  were  known.  This  was  no  vague  hypothesis,  but  the  result  of  a careful  and 
penetrating  appreciation  of  the  ‘ grand  style  ’ 5 of  the  Dresden  statue.  He  describes 
the  simple  treatment  and  rich  effect  of  the  drapery  ; the  transverse  aegis  seems  to  him 
to  indicate  peaceful  possession,  the  tranquil  watch  over  the  beloved  city.  And  of  the 
head  he  says  that  it  has  ‘ the  features  and  solemn  expression  appropriate  to  the 
maiden  goddess,’  and  that  the  beautiful  turn  towards  the  right  completes  the 
‘ exalted  image,  which  captivates  the  beholder  as  much  by  its  godlike  majesty  as  by 

1 Cf.  Schreiber,  Athena  Parthenos,  p.  583  ; my  article  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  699  ; and  Puchstein’s  remarks 
in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  93.  Wolters’s  view  ( Gipsabg . 477,  478)  is  obviously  incorrect. 

2 Vatican,  Gall,  delle  Statue,  400. 

3 According  to  Raspe,  No.  1651,  a nicolo,  ‘a  beautiful  engraving’;  the  owner  is  not  named;  badly 

reproduced  on  Plate  25  of  the  same  work.  A cast  is  in  the  Cades  Collection,  i.  H,  17,  from  which  our  illustration 
is  taken.  To  the  left  is  the  inscription  HEIOT,  badly  written  and  certainly  modern,  which  made  me  formerly 
doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  gem  ( Jahrb . d.  Inst.  iv.  1889,  p.  71).  But  the  inscription  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  stone,  which  is  beyond  suspicion,  and  is  a beautiful  and  carefully  executed  work  of  about  the  time 
of  Augustus.  4 Botticher’s  Amalthea,  ii.  (1822),  206  sqq. 

5 W.  G.  Becker  (Augusteum,  i.  p.  93  sqq.)  has  likewise  well  appreciated  this  style. 


Fig.  i. — Athena 
on  Gem  (Cades, 
i.  H,  17). 


DISCOVERY  OF  THE  LEMNIAN  ATHENA 


7 


the  freedom  and  naturalness  of  the  pose.’  What  judgment  would  he  not  have  passed 
could  he  have  seen  the  head  freed  from  the  ugly  modern  helmet  and  the  statue 
completed  by  the  finer  head  from  Bologna  ! Recently  the  extraordinary  likeness  of 
the  torso  to  the  Parthenos  caused  Puchstein 1 to  reckon  it  as  distinctly  Phcidian. 
The  head  belonging  to  it  was  unknown  to  him  ; but  since  an  Athena  from  Pergamon 
(see  p.  27)  which  he  showed  to  be  dependent  on  the  Dresden  type  was  bareheaded, 
he  concluded  that  the  Dresden  statues  also  had  worn  no  helmet,  and  pronounced 
it  not  impossible  that  we  have  in  them  good  copies  of  the  Lemnian  Athena  by 
Pheidias.2 

The  discovery  of  the  head  gives  to  this  hypothesis  a certainty  which  is  only  less  than 
absolute  in  a case  where  there  is  neither  the  evidence  of  provenance  nor  of  inscription 
to  shut  out  the  last  doubts.  The  premises  which  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  our 
statues  are  copies  of  the  Lemnia  consist  in  the  following  observations.  The  original 
must  have  been  a famous  work  of  classical  antiquity,  witness  the  marble  replicas 
which  have  been  enumerated  and  the  small  accurate  copy  on  the  engraved  gem. 
Again,  the  body  of  the  statue  comes  nearest  in  style,  of  any  known  work,  to  the 
Parthenos  of  Pheidias,  and  possesses  all  its  most  characteristic  and  personal  qualities : 
this  has  already  been  pointed  out  by  Puchstein,  and  we  shall  presently  prove  it  more 
in  detail.  If  any  work  is  to  be  taken  as  Pheidian,  surely  this  must  be.  Now  the 
famous  Lemnian  Athena  of  Pheidias  also  wore  no  helmet,  and  was  moreover  the  only 
famous  bareheaded  Athena  known  to  literary  tradition.  And  what  is  said  of  this 
work 3 corresponds  in  the  most  striking  manner  to  our  marbles,  in  fact  has  been  made 
clear  by  them.  The  Lemnia  was  noted  for  exceptional  charm  ; Lucian  describes  her  as 
undoubtedly  the  masterpiece  of  Pheidias,  and  borrows  for  his  ideal  beauty  the  outline  of 
her  face,  the  delicacy  of  her  cheeks,  and  the  fine  proportions  of  her  nose  ( Imagines , 6). 
Applied  to  the  Bologna  head  these  words  are  no  empty  phrases  (indeed,  so  far  as  we  can 
verify,  Lucian  is  never  a mere  phrase-maker) : on  the  contrary,  they  emphasize  peculiar 
merits  which  must  strike  any  one  who  looks  at  this  head  and  which  distinguish  it 
from  other  works  of  antiquity.  The  eximia pulchritudo  of  the  Lemnia  of  Pheidias  is 
possessed  in  a very  high  degree  by  the  head  which  belongs  to  the  statue  acknowledged 
as  Pheidian. 

Finally,  the  Lemnia  was  a work  in  bronze,  and,  as  nothing  is  said  to  the  contrary, 
it  was  probably  life-size.  Now  it  is  from  a life-size  figure  that  our  statues  derive,  for, 
since  they  accurately  reproduce  their  original  in  other  respects,  they  presumably  also 
reproduce  its  scale.  It  seems  likely  from  the  great  distance  at  which  the  arms  are  held 
out  from  the  body,  and  from  the  treatment  of  the  hair,  that  this  original  was  in  bronze, 
while  the  extraordinary  wealth  of  motive  in  the  separate  locks  and  the  subtlety  of  the 
execution  point  emphatically  to  the  same  conclusion.4  True,  artists  before  Pheidias 
employed  for  marble  the  same  technique  that  we  consider  characteristic  of  bronze — as 
for  instance  in  the  Aegina  marbles  and  in  the  boy’s  head  from  the  Akropolis  5 — i.e. 
they  imitated  bronze  technique  in  an  inferior  material  ; but  within  the  circle  of 
Pheidias  we  can  no  longer  suppose  that  this  was  the  case,  although  the  complete 
separation  between  marble  and  bronze  technique,  which  manifested  itself  especially  in 

1 Jahrb.  d.  hist.  1890,  p.  93  sqq.,  96,  note  3 6. 

2 Michaelis,  Athen.  Mitt.  1876,  p.  287,  had  previously  tried  to  refer  this  type  to  the  Athene  Hygieia  of 
Pyrrhos  ; his  theory  was  however  refuted  by  the  discovery  of  the  footmarks  of  the  statue  on  the  actual  basis.  Cf. 
Ath.  Mitth.  1891,  163,  Taf.  6. 

3 For  the  most  recent  discussion  of  the  passages  see  Studniczka,  Vermutiuigen  z.  Kunstgeschichte , p.  1 sqq. , and 
Weizsaecker,  Neue  Jahrb.  f Philologie , Bd.  133  (1886),  p.  14  seq. 

4 Cf.  Flasch  in  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1872,  66. 


5 ’E(j)rifj.epls  apxa<0'1'"  1 888,  Taf.  3. 


8 


PHEIDIAS 


the  hair,  was  not  effected  till  the  fourth  century.  As  regards  the  treatment  of  hair, 
we  may  compare  the  head  of  the  Lemnia  with  the  fragment  of  the  head  of  Nemesis 
from  Rhamnus,1  by  Agorakritos,  the  closest  pupil  of  Pheidias.  The  enormous  contrast 
between  them  is  certainly  due  to  differences  not  only  of  date  but  of  material  ; the  pupil 
working  in  marble  having  contented  himself  with  the  broadest  and  most  general  repro- 
duction of  the  principal  outlines.  Bronze  technique  involves  a previous  modelling  in 
clay  and  chisel  work  after  the  casting  ; all  this  brings  out  the  form  in  a sharp  and 
detailed  manner,  and  accounts  for  the  totally  different  treatment  of  our  Athena  head. 
Lastly,  the  hollow  eyes  afford  another  proof,  as  they  occur  principally  in  copies  from 
bronze  works. 

We  are  now  justified,  I think,  in  claiming  to  possess  exact  copies  after  a bronze 
work  by  Pheidias,  and  to  have  thereby  gained  for  the  first  time  a full  conception  of 
this  artist’s  achievements  in  the  round.  All  through  the  fifth  century,  apparently, 
bronze  casting  was  the  method  most  in  esteem  ; artists  found  in  it  a vehicle  for  the 
finest  execution  of  which  their  mastery  was  capable,  whereas  ivory  and  gold  technique 
imposed  on  them  an  over  rigid  restraint,  and  the  secrets  of  marble  work,  as  Praxiteles 
understood  them,  were  as  yet  undiscovered. 


II.  Site  of  the  Lemnia  on  the  Akropolis. — Date  and  Dedication. 

The  Lemnian  Athena  of  Pheidias  was  named  airo  tmv  avaQevrwv.  As  votive 
gifts  of  foreign  states  do  not  occur  on  the  Akropolis.  of  Athens,  at  least  in  the  fifth 
century,  the  dedicators  were  not  the  Lemnians,  but,  as  is  universally  agreed,  the  Attic 
kleruchs  on  Lemnos.  As  to  the  occasion  of  the  dedication,  Loschcke  has  made  the 
plausible  suggestion  2 that  it  was  set  up  by  the  kleruchs  on  their  departure  in  order  to 
secure  for  themselves,  even  when  far  away,  the  potent  protection  of  the  city  goddess. 
Loschcke  cites  two  votive  gifts  on  the  Akropolis  with  inscriptions  which  prove 
that  they  were  set  up  by  departing  kleruchs  ; 3 since  they  belong  approximately  to 
the  same  period  as  the  statue  by  Pheidias,  they  afford  a good  analogy.  The  objection 
that  such  a votive  gift  would  not  be  offered  before  some  success  had  been  attained 
is  without  weight,  for  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  time  ‘ the  permanent  holy  offering 
was  intended  to  remind  the  god  constantly  of  the  pious  intentions  of  the  giver,  and 
of  the  consequent  obligation  to  grant  him  protection  and  help  in  return  for  his 
gift.’ 4 Just  as  at  the  departure  of  the  kleruchs  a great  sacrifice,  inrep  A)?  crn-oucia^, 
was  offered  (as  we  know  from  the  inscription  concerning  the  kleruchs  of  Brea),5  so 
it  appears  to  have  been  the  custom  for  the  colonists  to  leave  behind  some  more 
lasting  symbol  of  sacrifice  in  the  form  of  a votive  gift.  Loschcke’s  suggestion  is, 
I think,  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  two  inscriptions  were  found  in  the  very 
part  of  the  Citadel  where,  according  to  the  periegesis  of  Pausanias,  the  Lemnia 
must  have  stood.  The  inscriptions  were  found  near  the  Propylaia  ; I remember 
seeing  one  of  them  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  northern  half  of  the  principal  structure. 
The  Lemnia  stood  on  the  same  part  of  the  Akropolis.  If  these  three  monuments, 
then,  have  a local  connexion,  we  have  the  more  reason  for  concluding  that  they 

1 Cf.  Rossbach  in  Athen.  Mitt.  1890,  p.  64. 

2 Tod  des  Phidias  in  Ilistor.  Unters.  dedicated  to  A.  Schafer  (Bonn,  1882),  p.  43. 

3 C.  I.  A.  i.  339;  Tijs  a7roi[irias]  rrjs  e’s  ’E p[irpiav  ; 340,  'Etto'ikoov  es  lloTeiSaiao. 

4 Emil  Reisch,  Griechische  Weihgeschenke,  p.  5. 

5 C.  I.  A.  i.  31  ; Dittenberger,  Sylloge,  12. 


< • 


' 


■ 


V 


».v  ' 


. 

. 


. 


w 

•.nvsv^q'.V  Y &Wr.  \u  w'w>V. 


.Xi'fiTR’l  Si  < I 


Printed  by  Glesecke  & Devrlent,  Leipzig  (Germany). 


LEMNIAN  ATHENA 


9 


were  presented  on  similar  occasions.  Plainly  the  statues  dedicated  by  departing 
kleruchs,  of  which  the  Lcmnia  was  one,  all  stood  together. 

This  place  needs  however  to  be  more  exactly  defined.  Pausanias,  whose 
evidence  we  take  first,  so  arranged  his  periegesis  of  the  Akropolis  that  after  coming- 
through  the  Propylaia  he  went  to  the  right  to  view  the  south  side  of  the  Citadel  and 
then  by  way  of  the  Ercchthcion  along  the  north  side  back  to  the  gates.  He  begins  his 
account  by  describing  the  Propylaia  and  all  that  was  to  be  seen  in  connexion  with 
them,  and  does  not  mention  them  again  at  the  end.  We  only  find  out  that  he  has  left 
the  Akropolis  by  his  reference  to  the  Pelargikon  below  the  Akropolis  and  to  the 
grotto  of  Apollo.  Of  the  four  monuments  which  close  his  description  of  the  Citadel, 
one,  the  so-called  Promachos  of  Pheidias,  is  fixed,  if  not  actually  by  remains  of  the 
basis,1  yet  at  least  by  well-known  coins,2  as  having  stood  between  the  Erechtheion 
and  the  Propylaia,  just  where  we  should  have  placed  it  in  reliance  on  the  account 
of  Pausanias.  Here  too  must  have  stood  in  the  time  of  Pausanias  the  four-horsed 
chariot  which  he  mentions  together  with  the  Promachos ; and  close  by,  nearer  the 
gates,  the  Perikles  and  the  Lemnia  ; Pausanias  passed  them  on  his  way  from  the 
Promachos  to  the  gate.3  They  cannot  have  been  within  the  Propylaia  or  in  front 
of  them,  for  the  gates  are  not  mentioned  again,  and  a complete  description  of  them, 
including  their  north  and  south  wings,  had  been  given  at  the  beginning.  The 
statues  more  probably  stood  to  the  north  of  the  principal  road  which  led  from 
the  Propylaia  along  the  top  of  the  Citadel,  and  would  therefore  correspond  to  the 
other  statues,  south  of  the  same  road,  which  are  named  at  the  beginning  of  the 
actual  periegesis  of  the  Citadel.  These  other  statues  are  not,  it  is  true,  clearly 
marked  off  from  the  description  of  the  Propylaia,  on  account  of  the  eloquent 
transition  which  Pausanias  devised  from  the  wisdom  of  Sokrates  to  the  wisdom  of 
Peisistratos  and  Hippias,  and  so  on  to  the  mistress  of  the  murderer  of  Hippias. 
But  the  exact  place  of  the  Athena  Hygieia,  one  of  a group  of  works  expressly 
mentioned  as  standing  near  together,4  is  definitely  known  through  the  basis  found 
in  situ  on  the  Akropolis  outside  the  Propylaia  on  the  east.  Hence  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  other  works  associated  with  it- — i.e.  the  Lioness,  the  Aphrodite  of 
Kalamis,  the  Diitrephes,  and  the  ‘Hygieia’ — were  also  outside.  From  the  circum- 
stance that  Pausanias  mentions  the  Athena  Hygieia  last  among  them,  we  may 
presume  that  this  statue,  standing  in  front  of  the  last  pillar  to  the  right,  would  not 
be  noticed  until  the  others  had  been  passed.  To  suppose  that  these  statues  were 
in  the  porch  itself,  and  to  reason  from  this  that  the  other  statues — or  at  least  the 
Perikles  and  the  Lemnia — stood  opposite  them  in  the  northern  part  of  the  porch,5  is 
entirely  mistaken.  Neither  the  one  series  of  statues  nor  the  other  was  within  the 
porch.  No  traces  whatever  of  any  such  monuments  have  been  found  on  the  floor  of 
the  Propylaia.  The  two  bases  belonging  to  the  statues  were  found  not  within,  but 

1 Cf.  Lbschcke,  loc.  cit.  p.  45,  note.  Lolling  in  Iwan  Miiller’s  Handbuch  d.  Alterthumswissenschaft,  vol.  iii. 
P-  352. 

2 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm,  on  Pausanias , PL  Z,  iii. — vii. 

3 The  assumption  that  Pausanias  is  here,  contrary  to  his  usual  custom,  enumerating  works  of  art  without 
reference  to  their  locality  (Curtius,  Stadtgeschichte,  p.  300)  is  entirely  without  foundation.  Cf.  Michaelis, 
Atlien.  Mitt.  ii.  95. 

4 After  the  express  mention  of  the  Hermes  Propylaios  and  the  Charites  as  Kara  tV  $<roSoi>  aiirr/n  fjBy  t^v  is 
aKponoAiv,  follows  the  mention  of  the  lioness  (the  transition  is  effected  by  means  of  the  wisdom),  no  definite  place 
being  given  ; irapa  avT^v  stands  the  Aphrodite  ; Tr\t\alov  the  Diitrephes,  and  again  ir\r\a'iov  to  this  the  Hygieia 
and  the  Athena  Hygieia. 

5 Cf.  especially  P.  Weizsaecker,  Neue  Jahrbiicher  f.  Philologie  (Fleckeisen),  vol.  133  (1886),  p.  1 sqq. 

C 


IO 


PHEIDIAS 


immediately  without  the  Propylaia,1  in  the  locality  where  they  once  stood,  though 
they  were  no  longer  in  situ.  Besides,  all  the  statues,  the  northern  as  well  as  the 
southern,2  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Athena  Hygieia,3  and  possibly  also  of  the 
hitherto  unidentified  ‘ Hygieia,’  are  older  than  the  Propylaia,  and  therefore,  supposing 
they  were  within  the  Propylaia,  they  must  have  been  moved  there  from  some  other 
position.  No  possible  reason  for  such  a transfer  can  be  discovered,  for  not  only  were 
all  the  statues  in  bronze  and  made  for  the  open  air,  but  the  corridor  of  the  Propylaia 
was  the  most  unsuitable  place  that  could  be  conceived  for  the  reception  of  votive 
gifts.  The  narrow  space  was  doubtless  kept  as  free  as  possible  and  not  crowded  up 
with  monuments.4 

The  Lcmnia  of  Pheidias,  then,  stood  on  the  way  from  the  Promachos  and  the 
quadriga  to  the  Propylaia  ; close  to  it  were  placed  other  monuments  set  up  by  the 
departing  kleruchies,  and  here  also  stood  the  portrait  of  Perikles.  It  is  quite  evident 
how  appropriately  all  these  works  were  placed  together,  for  the  kleruchies,  so  often 
a godsend  to  the  poorer  citizens,  were  the  work  of  this  statesman. 

The  position  which  we  have  shown  the  Lcmnia  to  have  occupied  explains  the 
motive  of  the  statue  very  simply.  It  stood  on  the  left  of  the  road,  and  would 
naturally  face  it.  But  as  the  gates  were  so  near,  it  was  natural  that  the  figure  should 
look  towards  them.  With  a kindly  glance  which  promised  peace  and  prosperity,  the 
goddess  followed  the  departing  kleruchy,  while  the  colonist  returning  to  his  native 
land  and  coming  up  to  worship  would  be  met  and  welcomed  by  the  same  protecting 
gaze.5 6  Plate  II.  gives  the  view  of  the  statue  as  I imagine  it  to  have  appeared  to 
any  one  entering  the  Citadel. 

According  to  Kirchhoff0  the  kleruchy  to  Lemnos  must  be  dated  between 
Ol.  82,  1 and  Ol.  83,  2,  i.e.  between  451  and  448—7.  It  was  at  this  time  therefore — in 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  roughly — that  Pheidias  made  the  statue.  On  the 
basis  was  inscribed  not  only  the  dedication,  but,  as  tradition  expressly  states,  the 
artist’s  signature.7  Thus  it  is  an  absolutely  authentic  work  by  Pheidias,  and  not 
merely  one  that  was  ascribed  to  him,  which  survives  in  the  beautiful  Dresden  copies. 


III.  Comparison  between  Lemnia  and  Parthenos. 

The  chronology  which  shows  the  Lemnia  to  have  been  a little  older  than  the  gold- 
ivory  Parthenos  executed  in  B.C.  447 — 438  receives  important  confirmation  from  a 
comparison  of  the  style  of  the  two  figures.  One  external  detail,  the  snake-border  of 
the  aegis,  is  specially  important  in  this  connexion.  The  Lemnia  follows  an  old 
fashion  taken  over  from  the  archaic  period  ; the  rolled  edge  of  the  aegis  is  worked  in 
round  scollops,  each  point  terminating  in  the  upper  part  of  a snake.  In  the  Parthenos 
the  system  is  quite  different : here  whole  snakes  form  the  trimming,  the  scollops  of 

1 The  Kallias  basis,  C.  I.  A.  i.  392,  which  supported  the  Aphrodite  of  Kalamis,  and  the  Hermolykos  basis, 
C.  I.  A.  i.  402,  on  which  the  Diitrephes  probably  stood  (see  infra , p.  122). 

2 For  Perikles  and  the  Diitrephes  cf.  the  section  on  Kresilas. 

3 Wolters  ( Athen . Mitt.  1891,  p.  153  sqq.)  has  pointed  out  that  this  statue  is  more  recent  than  the  Propylaia. 

* The  much-disputed  passage  of  Herodotos  about  the  four-horsed  chariot  need  cause  no  confusion.  Hero- 

dotos  had  the  old  Propylaia  before  his  eyes,  and  it  was  only  at  the  building  of  the  new  Propylaia  that  the  four- 
horsed  chariot  was  set  up  where  Pausanias  saw  it.  Cf.  Miller,  Amer.  Journ.  of  Arch.  1893,  504  seq. 

6 The  Athena  Hygieia  too,  to  judge  by  the  footmarks,  turned  slightly  towards  those  entering  from  the  gates  ; 
she  did  not  stand  exactly  in  front  of  the  pillar. 

6 Abhandl.  d.  Berliner  Akademie,  1875,  33. 

' Lucian,  Irnag.  4 : rrjv  tSruxvlav  rj  Ka\  iirrypatpat  Todvo/xa  <Pei5tas  7)|iaxre. 


LEMNIA  AND  PARTHENOS 


1  I 

the  older  aegis  being  approximately  imitated  by  the  winding  of  the  snakes,  and  by 
making  the  tail  of  the  one  curl  round  the  neck  of  the  next.1 2  The  statues  on  which 
this  new  manner  occurs  are  almost  without  exception  later  than  the  Parthenos,  and  it 
is  quite  possible  that  the  fashion  was  derived  from  this  statue.  The  innovation 
presupposes  an  artist  of  bold  and  original  temper  ; it  is  just  what  we  should  expect 
of  Pheidias,  who,  it  seems,  also  invented  the  motive  of  the  girdle  composed  of  two 
real  snakes  tied  in  a bow  in  front.  We  already  find  this  girdle  given  to  the  Lemnia  ; 
it  is  directly  derived  from  that  archaic  motive  in  which  two  snake-coils  coming  from 
the  long  aegis  at  the  back  are  twisted  together  in  front,  to  keep  not  the  drapery  but 
the  aegis  together.12 

Another  certain  mark  for  the  earlier  date  of  the  Lemnia  lies  in  the  rendering  of 
the  free  leg  ( Spielbein ).  The  first  thing  that  distinguishes  it  from  the  Parthenos  is  that 
this  foot,  instead  of  being  set  considerably  farther  back  than  that  of  the  supporting 
foot,  is  on  a line  with  it.  One  result  of  this  position  is  that  the  heel  of  the  foot  at 
ease  is  not  raised  as  in  the  Parthenos,  but  seems,  from  a side  view,  to  be  placed  flat  on 
the  ground,  although  in  reality  it  presses  less  heavily  than  the  ball  of  the  foot.  This 
attitude  of  the  Lemnia  is  one  stage  nearer  the  old  severe  position  (in  which  the  foot  is 
quite  flat  on  the  ground)  than  is  the  Parthenos.  Again,  in  the  Parthenos,  the  free 
leg  is  much  more  emphasized.  In  the  Lemnia  the  drapery  conceals  the  outline  of 
the  leg  ; in  the  Parthenos  it  clings  closer,  revealing  the  full  rounded  contour  of  the 
thigh,  and  in  a lesser  degree  the  shape  of  the  leg  below  the  knee.  There  is  a sharper 
distinction  between  body  and  drapery.  The  fold  which  falls  down  on  the  outer  side 
of  the  left  shin  of  the  Parthenos  is  missing  in  the  Lemnia,  where  the  treatment 
on  the  outer  side  is  excessively  simple  ; the  garment  is  heavy,  almost  like  leather, 
and  shrouds  the  leg  without  forming  any  larger  folds.  The  treatment  of  the 
Lemnia  is  evidently  a survival  of  an  older  manner,  in  the  Parthenos  the  transition 
is  already  being  made  to  the  development,  which  ended  in  the  Caryatids  of  the 
Erechtheion,  whose  light  clinging  drapery  reveals  the  bent  leg,  almost  as  if  it 
were  nude. 

A consideration  of  the  manner  in  which  the  garment  terminates  at  the  bottom 
leads  to  the  same  result.  In  the  Parthenos  it  falls  over  the  feet  and  touches  the 
ground.3  In  the  Lemnia  the  garment  is  shorter,  and  its  lower  hem  touches  neither  the 
ground  nor  the  supporting  foot,  but  falls  free,  thus  forming  a simple  horizontal  line 
without  the  richness  and  variety  shown  in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  Parthenos. 
In  this  particular  the  Parthenos  has  the  form  which  occurs  in  all  more  recent  statues, 
while  the  Lemnia  finds  analogies  only  in  earlier  works.4 

Although  these  details  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Lemnia  is  earlier  than  the 
Parthenos,  the  difference  in  date  must  have  been  slight,  because  the  two  statues 
correspond  so  closely  in  other  respects.  This  conclusion  is  in  harmony  with  the  result 
arrived  at  in  another  way — namely,  that  the  Lemnia  must  have  been  produced  immedi- 
ately before  the  first  designs  for  the  Parthenos  (447). 

Having  thus  gained  a firm  foothold  whence  to  review  the  development  of  one  of 
the  greatest  artists  of  antiquity,  we  may  now  proceed  to  examine  these  two  fixed 


1 The  border  of  snakes  is  best  preserved  in  the  replicas  D.  F.  G.  enumerated  by  Schreiber,  Athena  Parthenos. 

2 Cf.  the  copies  of  archaic  Athenas  in  the  Villa  Albani  and  in  Dresden,  Clarac,  462  D,  842  B ; 460,  855  ; 
for  the  bronze  see  A.  S.  Murray,  History  of  Greek  Sculpture,  ii.  PI.  10. 

3 It  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  folds  of  the  drapery  were  bunched  up  over  the  right  foot  in  the  original  as 
they  are  in  the  copy  of  the  Louvre  ( Minerue  au  collier).  The  Varvakion  statuette,  which  only  shows  a slight 
bend  in  the  drapery  over  the  instep,  is  probably  correct. 

4 Cf.  e.g.  the  Athena  of  the  Akropolis,  apx-  1887,  Taf.  8,  7.  See  infra,  p.  21  sqq. 


PHEIDIAS 


12 

points,  the  Lemnia  and  the  Parthenos,  more  in  detail.1  To  begin  with  the 
dress : there  is  no  essential  distinction  between  them  in  the  treatment  of  folds. 
Too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  on  the  difference  of  material  in  the  originals — 
bronze  in  one  case,  gold  and  ivory  in  the  other  ; its  only  consequence  would  be  to 
prevent  Pheidias  from  weakening  the  wooden  core  of  the  gold-ivory  statue  by  bringing 
deep  furrows  from  opposite  directions  towards  the  same  point,  a caution  unnecessary 
in  the  casting  of  bronze.  Otherwise  in  his  conception  of  drapery  Pheidias  appears  in 
general  to  be  independent  of  technique.  And,  given  the  precaution  mentioned,  there 
was  nothing  to  check  a free  and  rich  arrangement  of  folds  in  the  drapery  of  the 
Parthenos.  Ivory  and  gold  statues  were  in  all  probability  executed  in  their  complete 
form  in  wood,  and  the  draped  parts  would  then  be  covered  with  thin  plates  of  gold, 
while  for  the  nude  parts  flat  slices  of  wood  would  be  removed  from  the  surface 
(already  completely  modelled)  and  replaced  by  plates  of  ivory  cut  to  the  same  size 
and  shape.2  The  wood  technique,  while  imposing  the  form,  offers  not  the  smallest 
obstacle  to  the  execution  of  deeply  cut  folds. 

Other  differences  in  the  drapery  of  the  two  statues  have  nothing  to  do  with 
technique  ; they  may  arise  partly  from  the  difference  in  date,  but  most  of  them  exist 
on  internal  grounds,  and  express  the  different  character  of  the  two  statues  ; the 
Lemnia  is  as  a whole  simpler  and  more  severe,  the  Parthenos  richer  and  more 
majestic.  The  drapery  of  the  Lemnia  gives  an  impression  of  magnificence  by  its 
severe  reality,  by  the  large,  almost  coarse  simplicity  of  its  rendering  ; there  is 
no  trace  of  the  artificial  or  the  intentional  ; the  folds  fall  as  they  must,  without 
regard  to  symmetrical  arrangement,  and  equally  unsymmetrical  is  the  aegis 
thrown  obliquely  across  the  breast.  The  Parthenos  is  in  festal  attire,  all  is 
arranged  carefully,  soberly,  and  of  intention  ; especially  so  are  the  folds  above  and  below 
the  girdle.  Here  the  goddess  steps  forward  to  meet  her  worshippers  in  her  holiday 
robe  disposed  with  delicate  precision,  but  the  Lemnia  is  in  her  everyday  dress.  This 
distinction  must  arise  from  the  different  conception  which  underlies  the  two  statues. 
In  the  temple  the  goddess  appears  in  full  majesty  and  splendour,  as  a queen 
giving  audience  in  her  throne-room  ; the  figure  in  the  open  air  has  laid  aside 
outward  marks  of  dignity,  and  meets  her  worshippers  unadorned,  on  the  footing 
of  everyday  life,  ready  with  friendly  sympathy,  advice,  and  aid. 

This  accounts  for  the  stiffness  and  regularity  of  the  folds  in  the  diploi's  of  the 
Parthenos,  in  contrast  to  the  more  natural  and  fresher  rendering  of  the  drapery  of 
the  Lemnia.  The  difference  in  the  lower  part  of  the  body  may  be  explained  much 
in  the  same  way.  In  the  Parthenos  this  lower  portion  consists  of  two  distinct  halves, 
owing  to  the  different  treatment  of  the  free  leg,  and  of  the  supporting  leg  which  is 
covered  by  regular  perpendicular  folds  resembling  the  flutings  of  a pillar.  Pheidias 
found  this  type  ready  to  hand  ; 3 he  elaborated  it,  and  in  the  period  after  the 
Parthenos  it  came  into  great  vogue.  But  what  we  see  in  the  Lemnia  was  never  a 
‘type’  either  at  the  time  it  was  produced  or  afterwards;  it  is  something  quite 
individual  and  unique.  The  artist  has  broken  away  from  tradition  and  scheme,  from 
rule  and  symmetry;  in  a happy  hour  he  has  gone  straight  to  nature,  and  expressed 

1 My  remarks  on  the  style  of  the  Parthenos  are  based  exclusively  on  the  good  copies,  from  which  we  must 
exclude  the  torso  from  the  Akropolis  taken  by  Puchstein,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  v.  (1890),  p.  85,  as  the  starting-point  of 
his  inquiry.  P.  was  further  misled  in  his  observations  by  an  inaccurate  cast  of  the  Varvakion  statuette,  in  which 
the  depth  of  the  folds  had  been  smoothed  down,  so  that  his  section  ( loc . cit.  p.  84)  is  not  exact. 

2 I owe  this  convincing  argument  to  an  experienced  sculptor. 

3 It  occurs  for  instance  on  the  Athena  of  the  Olympian  metope  representing  the  cleansing  of  the  Augean 
stables. 


T l *■ 

*■  • 


v 

; * 1 

V * #„* i 

# 

* 

. 

1 

♦ 

*11* 

Statue  of  Athena  in  Dresden. 

• 

p 

(From  the  Cast.) 

f v 

ft, 


Printed  by  Glesecke  & Devrient,  Leipzig  (Germany). 


LEMNIA  AND  PARTHENOS 


13 


what  he  felt  in  a large  and  forcible  manner.  This  work  keeps  the  spontaneity  of  the 
first  conception  : it  might  be  copied,  but  could  not  serve  as  a type  or  be  further 
developed,  while  statues  in  the  type  of  the  Parthenos  might  exist  in  numbers. 

What  we  have  learnt  from  a comparison  of  the  bodies  of  the  statues  doubtless 
applied  in  a far  higher  degree  to  the  heads.  But  an  exact  comparison  of  these  is 
impossible,  because,  as  we  remarked  before,  none  of  the  extant  copies  of  the  head 
of  the  Parthenos  are  anything  like  as  reliable  and  exact  as  the  copies  of  the  Lemnia. 
They  differ  among  themselves  so  completely  in  the  finer  details  of  form  and  expression 
that  they  afford  no  fixed  basis  for  argument.  We  can  only  judge  of  the  superficial 
effect  and  the  general  character.1  The  head  seems  to  have  differed  markedly  from 
that  of  the  Lemnia.  The  Parthenos  appeared  (as  was  appropriate  to  the  conception) 
fully  adorned,  with  necklace  and  earrings,  with  richly  decorated  helmet,  and  stately 
ringlets  falling  on  the  breast  in  severe  symmetry.  She  was  standing  upright  and 
looking  straight  out  with  joyful  and  victorious  countenance.  Carrying  out  this  funda- 
mental idea,  Pheidias  gave  the  goddess  a somewhat  broad,  full  face  ; it  was  to  express 
radiant  health  and  well-nourished  vigour,  for  the  goddess  was  the  personification 
of  the  great  and  brilliant  Attic  Empire.  This  was  no  place  for  the  severe  and 
thoughtful  Athena,  with  the  delicate  cheeks.  The  deeper  intellectual  expression 
must  make  way  for  the  representation  of  joyous  wealth  and  splendour. 

All  this  is  an  admirable  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  great  artists  of  antiquity 
did  not  repeat  the  same  type  again  and  again,  as  modern  critics  would  fain  have  us 
believe,  but,  like  artists  of  more  recent  times,  indefatigably  created  new  forms  to 
embody  new  ideas. 


IV.  Analysis  of  the  Lemnia. 

It  is  now  time  to  examine  more  closely  the  individual  peculiarities  of  the 
Lemnia,  and  in  particular  of  the  head,  as  being  the  grandest  and  most  noteworthy 
part  of  the  statue.  The  Bologna  replica  is  reproduced  alone  on  PI.  III. 

The  two  most  striking  qualities  of  our  Athena  are  the  absence  of  helmet  and 
the  short  hair  combed  up  at  the  back.  The  goddess  has  wavy  and  curly  hair  parted 
in  the  middle  and  confined  with  a fillet  tied  in  a simple  knot  behind  ; in  front,  above 
the  forehead,  the  full  hair  is  combed  back  towards  the  ears  in  a manner  which  occurs 
only  on  female  heads,  and  which  is  alone  sufficient  to  decide  the  sex.  The  hair 
leaves  the  ears  free,  or  only  just  touches  their  upper  edge,  and  disappears  under  the 
fillet  ; behind  the  ears  the  wavy  ends  are  combed  straight  up,  and  likewise  tucked 
into  the  fillet. 

Was  this  conception  of  Athena,  with  bare  head  and  short  gathered-up  hair, 
and  carrying  her  helmet  in  her  hand,  an  invention  of  Pheidias,  or  did  he  only 
follow  an  existing  model  ? A glance  at  the  monuments  will  show  us  that  the 
latter  was  the  case. 

If  we  look  back  into  early  archaic  art  we  shall  become  aware  that  side  by 

1 For  heads  of  the  Parthenos  see  Loschcke,  Festschrift  d.  Vereinsv.  Altert.-Fr.  im  Rheinlande  z.  50  Jubil. 
1891,  p.  I sqq. ; the  list  omits,  however,  the  best  of  the  heads,  that  of  the  statue  by  Antiochos  in  the  Mus.  Boncom- 
pagni  (Helbig,  Museums,  870).  On  the  other  hand,  the  head  in  Naples,  published  by  B.  Graf  (Aus  der  Anomia, 
p.  61)  cannot,  on  account  of  its  great  variations  from  the  ascertained  copies,  be  reckoned  among  them.  The 
most  important  copies  of  the  Parthenos  head  are  : the  Varvakion  statuette,  the  Minerve  au  collier,  the  statue 
by  Antiochos,  the  Cologne  head,  the  Berlin  head  ; of  smaller  monuments,  a marble  head  from  the  Akropolis 
Museum  (No.  647,  unpublished)  ; also  the  Aspasios  gem  and  the  corresponding  head  on  Athenian  bronze 
coins  (Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  Y,  xxiv.  Specially  good  example  in  the  collection 
of  U.  Kohler,  Berlin).  The  St.  Petersburg  gold  medallions  are  only  free  imitations. 


14 


PHEIDIAS 


side  with  the  ordinary  warlike  conception  of  Athena  there  was  another  equally 
independent  and  original  type,  which  presented  the  goddess  entirely  unarmed.1  This 
conception,  it  is  true,  fell  gradually  into  the  background  ; it  did  not  disappear,  but 
it  took  a secondary  place  beside  the  dominant  image  of  the  armed  warlike  goddess, 
the  only  one  recognized  by  the  national  poetry.  To  represent  the  peaceful  Athena 
later  archaic  art  invented  a new  motive  : the  goddess  takes  off  her  helmet  and 
holds  it  in  her  hand.  She  appears  frequently  in  this  attitude  on  the  later  black- 

figured  Attic  vases,  eg.  in  peaceful  colloquy 
with  Herakles  or  in  procession  to  the  unwar- 
like competition  before  Paris  on  Ida.2  On  the 
earlier  red-figured  vases,  too,  this  type  some- 
times appears  ; it  seems  to  be  a special 
favourite  on  vases  belonging  to  the  transition 
from  the  severe  to  the  fine  style  or  to  the 
earlier  fine  style,  i.e.  to  the  period  circa  B.C. 
480 — 450.  Here  Athena  appears  holding  her 
helmet  in  her  hand,3  sometimes  alone,  some- 
times in  a peaceful  assembly  of  divinities. 
From  these  paintings  we  gather  that  just  in 
the  period  immediately  preceding  the  Lemnia 
of  Pheidias  the  Athenians  had  a fancy  for 
representing  their  goddess  with  her  helmet  off 
and  armed  only  with  the  lance.  Probably  the 
kleruchs  who  emigrated  to  Lemnos  had  ex- 
pressly ordered  just  such  an  image,  for  their 
undertaking  could  be  successful  only  if  times 
were  peaceful,  and  therefore  a goddess  of  peace 
must  be  their  patroness. 

In  the  period  after  the  Lemnia  this  type 
outlived  its  popularity  : it  occurs  rarely,4  and  after  a time  disappears  altogether. 

By  a kind  of  extension  of  this  type  the  helmet  is  sometimes  entirely  left  out, 
i.e.  it  is  not  even  carried  in  the  hand.  This  modification  in  the  representation  of  their 
goddess  also  enjoyed  its  own  popularity  among  the  Athenians  just  in  the  decades 
preceding  the  Lemnia,  as  we  learn  from  vases.5  It  occasionally  occurs  later,  but 


1 Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  687  sqq.  ; 693,  Z.  63  sqq. 

3  Elite  Ct!ram.  i.  81  ; Millingen,  Vases  Coghill,  34  ; Roulez,  C/ioix,  PL  7,  2. 

3 Especially  on  the  slender  ‘ Nolan  ’ amphorae,  with  as  a rule  only  one  figure  on  each  side  ; cf.  Elite 
Ctlramogr.  i.  76  and  76  A,  style  about  480.  Somewhat  more  recent,  ibid.  PI.  80,  82,  86  ; cf.  Mus.  Gregor. 
ii.  52,  2;  21,  1 ; Klein,  Lieblingsinschriften,  p.  63,  80;  Berlin,  2377,  2378;  Samm.  Sabouroff,  PL  61  ; Roulez, 
Choi; r de  Vases,  PL  8;  Mon.  d.  Inst.  6,  58;  Benndorf,  Vasenbilder,  PL  27,  3 (Berlin,  2251).  The  seated 
figure  on  the  coin  (Gardner,  Types,  PL  3,  44)  is  certainly  not  Athena,  but  the  nymph  Thebe  (so  also  Head, 
Historia  Num.  p.  296). 

4 Cf.  the  fine  Attic  relief  of  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  in  Lansdowne  House  (Michaelis,  Anc.  Marbles  in 
Gt.  Britain,  p.  450,  59).  The  gem  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  649,  Cades,  i.  K,  66  (for  the  forged  inscription  cf.  Jahrb. 
d.  Inst.  iii.  214),  and  a similar  one  in  Berlin  (4651),  probably  reproduce  a prototype  of  the  later  fifth 
century.  The  same  is  probably  true  of  the  beautiful  Cyprian  terra-cotta  (Ath.  Mitth.  vi.  250;  J.H.S.  PL  16; 
A.  S.  Murray,  Hist,  of  Gr.  Sculpture,  ii.  PL  17). 

5 Athena  pouring  libation,  Berlin  vases,  2162  ; in  an  attitude  of  triumph  with  a ship’s  akroterion,  Elite 
dram . i.  75  ; pouring  wine  for  Herakles,  Wiener  Vorlegeb.  Ser.  A,  2 (Kylix  in  style  of  Duris)  ; Millingen, 
Vases  Feints,  ii.  41  ; receiving  Erichthonios,  Mon.  d.  Inst.  i.  10,  x.  38  ; receiving  a fillet  from  Nike,  Elite 
dram.  i.  68  ; before  Paris,  Elite  dram.  ii.  28  ; with  Perseus,  Dumont-Chaplain,  dram.  Gr.  ii.  Pl.  suppl.  A ; 
with  Pandora,  J.  H.  S.  xi.  Taf.  ii.  ; Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2051  ; alone,  leaning  on  a lance,  on  a white  lekythos 
from  Eretria  (Athens),  similar  to  the  relief  (infra,  fig.  4).  Even  in  a fighting  scene  Athena  appears  without  a 


BAREHEADED  ATHENA 


15 


apparently  only  on  monuments  belonging  to  the  fifth  century  or  deriving  from  fifth- 
century  originals.1  Thus  vve  find  Athena  without  a helmet  in  the  peaceful  festal 
assembly  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  and  on  reliefs  inscribed  with  treaties  or  decrees.2  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  head  of  Athena  without  a helmet  and  wreathed  with  olive 
occurs  in  the  first  coin-types  of  the  city  of  Herakleia  in  Lower  Italy,  founded  about 
433 — 432  (Plate  VI.  18).  An  aegis  is  given  as  background  to  the  head  in  order  to 
characterize  it  as  Athena.3  The  founding  of  the  city  was  the  result  of  an  understanding 
arrived  at  after  long  conflicts  between  Thurii  and  Tarentum  concerning  the  Siritis  : the 
Tarcntines  were  the  actual  founders,4  but  the  choice  of  Athena  in  the  attitude  of 
peace  for  the  coin-type  was  evidently  a concession  on  their  part  to  the  Attic 
colony  of  Thurii — a concession  typical  of  the  peaceful  understanding  between  the  two 
states.  At  this  period  even  Tarentum  for  a short  time  stamped  on  her  smaller  coin- 
age (on  thcobols)  the  head  of  Athena  without  helmet,  against  an  aegis.5  This  peaceful 
Athena,  then,  like  the  Lcmnia,  is  closely  bound  up  with  historical  events.  Some 
later  monuments  which  represent  the  goddess  bareheaded  are  apparently  derived 
from  Attic  prototypes  of  the  fifth  century,6  so  that  on  the  whole  the  type  may 
be  said  to  belong  to  the  great  period  of  Attic  supremacy  within  which  it  took  its  rise. 

The  Athena  who  holds  the  helmet  in  her  hand  or  has  no  helmet  at  all 
almost  always  wears  a fillet  or  diadem,  which  is  frequently  of  stately  dimensions.7 
This  is  her  festal  ornament  as  goddess  of  peace.  In  giving  the  Lemnia  a fillet 
Pheidias  was  again  following  a firmly  established  tradition. 

helmet  on  the  krater,  Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  49.  These  vases  all  belong  to  circa  480—450  B.c.  The  Olympian 
metope  with  the  bareheaded  Athena  (Overbeck,  Gesch.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  442)  belongs  to  the  same  period, 
and  so  does  a Greek  bronze  of  the  Iran  Collection  in  Vienna. 

1 The  so-called  Kodros  Kylix  is  contemporary  with,  or  only  a little  later  than,  the  Lemnia. 

2 Studniczka,  Vermuthungen  z.  Kunstgesch ichte , p.  1 2,  A.  B.  The  head  of  a statue  representing  the  bareheaded 
Athena  seems  preserved  in  a copy  : see  Mon.  d.  Inst.  ix.  49  ; cf.  Annali , 1872,  5 sqq.  (Flasch).  The  gorgoneion 
and  the  snakes  on  the  diadem  seem  enough  to  justify  the  interpretation  as  Athena.  The  head  probably  repro- 
duces an  Attic  original  from  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.  The  snakes  have  nothing  to  do  with  Hygieia. 

3 Good  illustrations  Gardner  (who  wrongly  interprets  the  head  as  Nike),  Types , PI.  5,  22  ; Head,  Guide,  PI. 
24,  11.  The  type  appears  on  the  obol  of  the  city  as  well  as  on  the  stater.  From  their  style  these  coins  must  be 
dated  immediately  after  the  founding  of  the  city.  The  usual  assumption  that  they  belong  to  the  fourth  century 
(Head,  Hist.  Num.  p.  59,  dates  them  circa  3S0 — 300),  and  that  only  the  small  obols  with  the  Herakles  head  and 
the  inscription  HE  (according  to  Head  the  only  coins  stamped  between  432 — 380)  are  older,  is  untenable.  The  style 
of  these  obols  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  staters  ; especially  is  this  the  case  in  the  fight  with  the  lion  (also 
with  the  inscription  HE)  which  occasionally  appears  on  the  reverse.  The  inscription  HE  affords  no  proof  of  date, 
for  among  these  coins  are  some  inscribed  HP  (Berlin)  which  differ  in  no  other  respect  from  those  marked  HE. 
The  variation  in  epigraphy  only  marks  a period  of  transition  ; HPAK...  and  I-  HPAK  ..occur  side  by  side  on  the 
staters.  The  staters  with  the  Athena  type  of  Thurii  follow  very  closely  on  those  with  the  bareheaded  Athena. 

4 Gf.  Antiochos,  frag.  12,  Midler  (Strabo,  6,  p.  264);  Diod.  12,  36,  3;  Busolt,  Griech.  Gesch.  2,  592. 

5 Examples  in  the  Berlin  Cabinet  ; reverse  Kantharos. 

6 So  the  Lower-Italy  Kyknos  vase,  Bull.  Napol.  n.  s.  i.  6,  from  an  Attic  prototype  of  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century  (cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2231,  54)  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  ix.  32.  The  Ficoroni  Cista  (where  Athena 
appears  among  the  Argonauts  without  a helmet)  is  derived,  I believe,  from  a mural  painting  of  the  Polygnotan 
cycle  (cf.  infra).  The  Athena  of  the  Tarentine  vase,  Mon.  d.  Inst.  vi.  71,  1 ; Wiener  Vorlegeb.  Ser.  A,  10,  1 
(Judgment  of  Paris),  seems  to  be  dependent  on  the  Lemnia,  e.g.  the  hair,  the  helmet  on  the  hand,  the  transverse 
aegis,  and  the  drapery  correspond.  A Florentine  gem  which  belonged  to  the  Medici  family  and  is  undoubtedly 
genuine  (Gori,  AIus.  Flor.  ii.  55,  1 ; Miiller-Wieseler,  Denkm.  ii.  200a ; Impression,  Cades,  i.  H,  30)  is 
remarkable  : the  goddess  appears  here  bareheaded  with  short  hair.  A plume  and  snakes  on  the  drapery 
designate  her  as  Athena  ; no  aegis  ; free  fifth-century  style.  An  analogous  work  is  the  Berlin  paste  of  Solon, 
Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  iii.  Taf.  3,  8.  Both  are  free  ‘ fantasias  ’ by  artists  of  the  Augustan  age  on  themes  of  the  Pheidian 
epoch. 

7 Long  fillet  twice  bound  round,  Elite  dram.  i.  76.  For  flowers  or  zigzags  on  the  diadem  cf.  Elite  dram.  i. 
68,  75.  For  Pegasoi  on  diadem  see  the  krater  Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  49.  Cf.  in  addition  to  the  Parthenos  the 
earlier  coin  of  Methymna  (Head,  Guide,  PI.  II.  27);  from  this  evidence  it  follows  that  the  magnificent  head  on 
a fragment  of  pottery,  known  only  from  Tischbein’s  drawing  [Elite,  i.  29),  may  be  named  Athena ; the  goddess 
wears  a diadem  crowned  with  Pegasoi,  and  no  helmet. 


i6 


PH  El  DIAS 


Nor  was  the  short  bound-up  hair  invented  by  Pheidias.  It  is  quite  unknown 
in  the  archaic  period,  but  in  the  transition  style,  when  hair  was  more  plainly  dressed 
and  more  closely  tied,  the  change  of  fashion  influences  the  type  of  Athena.  We 
find  it  for  the  first  time  in  some  helmeted  Athenas  belonging  to  the  early  decades 
of  the  fifth  century.  These  show  the  simple  round  roll  of  hair  on  the  nape  of  the 
neck,1  introduced  by  Peloponnesian  art  and  freely  adopted  for  male  and  female 
figures  of  every  kind.2  It  seems,  then,  that  these  monuments  are  Peloponnesian  in 
style  and  perhaps  in  origin.  In  Attic  art  proper  the  bound-up  hair  occurs  almost 
exclusively  in  the  bareheaded  Athena,  just  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the 
Lcmnia,  but  the  mass  of  hair  is  richer  and  fuller  than  in  the  Lemnia.3  The  coiffure 
of  the  Lemnia  in  its  extreme  simplicity  and  restraint  recalls  the  plain  roll  of  hair 
of  Peloponnesian  art.  In  the  period  after  the  Lemnia  the  bareheaded  Athena  with 
bound-up  hair  sometimes  occurs.4  The  short  hair,  not  rolled  up,  worn  by  the  goddess 
on  the  Parthenon  frieze,  is  practically  unique.5 6 

Another  emblem  of  peace  is  the  transverse  aegis  of  the  Lemnia  : it  is  not  intended 
as  a protection,  and  therefore  leaves  part  of  the  breast  free.  The  girdle  passes  above 
it.  Pheidias  found  the  essential  part  of  this  arrangement  ready  to  hand  : it  occurs 
more  especially  in  the  artistic  cycle  to  which  the  Olympian  sculptures  belong  ; on  one 
of  the  Olympian  metopes,  for  instance,  representing  Athena,  bareheaded,  seated  on  a 
rock  and  receiving  from  Meraklcs  the  birds  he  has  slain,0  the  goddess  wears  the 
transverse  aegis  fastened,  just  as  in  the  Lemnia,  on  the  right  shoulder.  The  only 
difference  is  that  the  aegis  on  the  Olympian  metope  covers  the  left  shoulder  and  the 
left  arm,  which  is  pressed  close  to  the  body,  while  in  the  Lemnia  the  left  arm  is  raised 
and  the  aegis  passes  under  it.  The  same  transverse  aegis  and  manner  of  wearing  it 
occur  on  an  Athena  rather  under  life-size  lately  found  in  Rome  ; the  work  is  an 
original  belonging  to  the  same  cycle  as  the  Olympian  sculptures.7  The  transverse 
aegis  frequently  appears  in  later  art,  but  only  in  the  narrow  contracted  form  which  it 
assumed  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.  Even  the  Parthcnos  no  longer  wears 
the  mighty  aegis  retained  by  Pheidias  for  the  Lemnia,  while  the  Athena  on  the  west 
pediment  of  the  Parthenon  wears  a very  narrow  transverse  aegis. 

Thus  the  external  characteristics  of  the  Lemnia — the  uncovered  head,  the  closely 
bound-up  hair,  the  festal  fillet,  the  helmet  carried  in  the  hand,  and  the  transverse  aegis— 


1 I.  Staters  from  Corinth  ; severe  style.  A poor  example  in  Brit.  Museum,  Catalog.  Corinth , PI.  2,  20  ; 
three  better  in  the  Berlin  Cabinet. — 2.  Staters  from  Side  ; fine  severe  style,  hair  short  and  curly  or  rolled  up 
(Berlin)  ; Hunter,  PI.  49,  3,  quoted  by  Plead,  Hist.  Num.  p.  5S6,  is  a different  type. — 3.  Bronze  statuette  from 
Magna  Graecia  in  the  British  Museum,  Coll.  Castellani,  badly  reproduced  in  Mon.  d.  Inst.  Suppl.  Tav.  26,  6 ; 
good  severe  style  ; Athena  striding.  —4.  Small  silver  coin  of  Ivyme  in  Italy  ; severe,  not  fine  (illus.  Brit.  Mus. 
Catal.  Italy , p.  88). — 5.  Relief  from  the  Akropolis  [infra.  Fig.  4).  In  all  these  monuments  the  helmet  has  the 
Corinthian  shape.  The  same  simple  roll  of  hair,  but  with  the  Attic  helmet,  is  seen  on  6,  the  Olympian  metope, 
Augean  stables  [Ausgr.  von  01.  ii.  26  A),  and  7,  Athena  head  of  severe  style,  wrongly  placed  on  a statue 
of  the  Capitol  ( Jahrb . d.  Oesterr.  Kunsts.  xii.  p.  73). 

2 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogramm  (1890),  p.  128. 

3 Cf.  Elite  Clram.  i.  75,  80,  82  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  38  ; Overbeck,  Gallerie,  Taf.  10,  3 (Berlin,  2536) ; Benndorf, 
Vasenbilder,  Taf.  27,  3 (Berlin,  2251)  ; also  Berlin,  2378  ; J.  H S.  xi.  Taf.  ii. 

4 Cf.  the  coins  already  referred  to  Herakleia  and  Tarentum,  the  Kodros  Kylix,  the  Kyknos  vase,  the  Ficoroni 
Cista,  the  gem  in  the  Brit.  Museum  Catal.  649,  the  similar  one  in  Berlin,  4651,  and  the  Pergamene  statue, 
Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  v.  1890,  p.  95  [infra,  p.  27).  The  Berlin  carnelian  (Tolken,  iv.  245),  showing  head  of  Athena 
[not  Achilles)  wearing  helmet,  with  hair  rolled  up  behind,  is  influenced  by  an  earlier  work. 

5 The  hair,  now  much  defaced,  is  wound  round  with  a broad  fillet  as  on  the  Kyknos  vase.  Similar  short 
hair  for  Athena  on  the  Anesidora  Kylix  (Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2058,  date  circa  B.C.  460). 

6 Overbeck,  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  442;  Fried.-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  273.  The  aegis  is  absolutely  certain,  and 
the  figure  (sometimes  interpreted  as  a nymph)  is  certainly  Athena. 

7 In  the  Museo  delle  Terme  ; Parian  marble  ; head  missing. 


jk* 


* 


» ■_ , y.  i 

v ’•  r .> ' ’ 


* * 


III. 


Head  in  Boloona. 

(From  the  Cast.) 


t 


f 


. 


< #. 


* . 

1 .J.  ■?*' 


V 

■*. 


* 


HEAD  OF  THE  LEMNIA 


17 


were  borrowed  by  Pheidias  from  works  already  in  existence.  But  the  working  out  of 
these  characteristics  and  the  whole  inner  conception  of  his  Athena  is  the  master’s 
very  own.  His  intention  is  sufficiently  clear.  He  wishes  to  present  the  ideal  maiden, 
in  her  purity  and  strength.  The  forms  of  the  body  are  slightly  masculine  in  contour, 
the  hips  are  narrow  and  the  abdomen  is  almost  flat,  the  chest  is  broad  and  powerful  but 
the  breasts  undeveloped.  The  head  was  formerly  supposed  to  be  male  ; the  mistake 
was  recognized  even  before  the  head  was  found  to  represent  Athena,  for  not  only  the 
dressing  of  the  hair  but  the  forms,  especially  of  the  throat  and  cheeks,  are  undoubtedly 
female  ; yet  a right  instinct  lay  below  this  wrong  interpretation,  for  there  is  in  the 
head  a strong  dash  of  boyishness  combined  with  feminine  charm.  The  maiden  still 
shows  the  delicate  austerity  of  early  youth,  the  woman  in  her  is  not  yet  awake,  and  she 
is  still  intent  on  the  occupations  and  sports  proper  to  boy  and  girl  alike.  Modern  art 
has  tried  to  reach  a similar  goal  by  similar  means  ; the  type  of  the  full-grown  angel 
shows  the  same  mingling  of  boyish  and  maidenly  characteristics.  Finally,  we  may 
remember  Preller’s  beautiful  comparison,1  made  as  if  in  anticipation  of  our  statue, 
between  the  Lemnia  of  Pheidias  and  Schiller’s  Maid  of  Orleans,  who  lays  down  her 
arms  when  war  is  over. 

We  now  pass  from  general  impression  to  a close  examination  of  the  head  and 
body  of  the  statue. 

The  profile  of  the  skull  (Fig.  3)  forms  a perfect  curve  from  the  forehead  to  the  nape 
of  the  neck.  On  the  frieze  and  pediments  of  the  Parthenon  this  line  rises 
more  perpendicularly  above  the  forehead,  and  runs  more  horizontally  on  the  top,  as 
in  the  Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos.  The  skull  of  the  Lemnia  is  rather  elongated,  and 
remarkably  uniform  ; looked  at  from  above  it  has  the  shape  of  a regular  oval 
equally  developed  in  front  and  at  the  back — a shape  usually  supposed  to  betoken 
an  harmonious  disposition. 

The  face  viewed  from  the  front  forms  an  elongated  and  regular  oval  to 
correspond  with  the  skull.  The  forehead,  cheek-bones,  and  chin  are  not  prominent, 
but  are  bounded  by  softly  curved  lines.  This  is  what  Lucian  means  when  he  praises 
the  ‘contour  of  the  face’  and  ‘delicacy  of  the  cheeks’  in  the  Lemnia,  and  adopts 
them  for  his  ideal  beauty.  The  nose  (no  less  admired  by  Lucian),  although  marked 
off  from  the  forehead  only  by  a very  slight  depression,  is  yet  set  at  a more  marked 
angle  to  the  forehead  than  in  the  heads  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  and  other  works  of 
the  same  period  ; the  profile  line  finds  its  nearest  parallel  in  the  Olympian  sculptures, 
the  Spinario  and  the  Massimi  Diskobolos,  as  well  as  on  vases  of  the  earlier 
fine  style.  This  is  a fresh  confirmation  of  our  dating  of  the  Lemnia  at  about 
450  B.C.  The  lower  part  of  the  face  is  delicate,  and  recedes  rather  than  projects, 
without  however  appearing  weak ; the  chin,  seen  in  profile,  forms  an  exquisite 
curve. 

The  forehead  does  not,  as  might  appear  from  a cursory  glance,  form  a simple 
plane  surface.  Placed  in  a good  light  or  felt  with  the  hand,  it  proves  to  swell 
gently  and  gradually  towards  the  middle  ; shallow  depressions  separate  this  central 
part  from  the  rise  over  the  eyebrows.  The  modelling  of  these  parts  is  executed 
with  extraordinary  measure  and  restraint.  The  eyebrow  itself  has  a very  sharp 
edge  and  is  finely  arched,  the  eyelids  are  delicate,  the  bridge  of  the  nose  is  narrow, 
the  sides  steep,  the  nostrils  are  full  and  living,  though  treated  with  moderation. 
The  transition  from  the  nose  to  the  cheek  is  effected  with  peculiar  beauty.  The 
nose  of  the  Lemnia  differs  totally  from  the  Polykleitan  nose,  the  sides  of  which 

1 Hallische  Encyklopadie,  iii.  Vol.  22,  p.186. 


D 


iS 


PHEIDIAS 


slope  much  more  gradually.1  In  the  Bologna  head  the  furrow  between  nose  and 
upper  lip  is  strongly  accentuated,  in  evident  imitation  of  the  sharp  contour  of  the 
bronze  original.  The  lips  are  closed,  a feature  of  frequent  occurrence  in  works  of 
the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century,  but  rarer  afterwards.  The  mouth  is  modelled 
with  indescribable  grace  ; every  trace  of  hardness  and  severity  such  as  still  clings 
to  the  Olympian  sculptures  has  disappeared  ; and,  further,  Pheidias  has  succeeded 
in  representing  the  very  breath  of  life  in  a manner  at  once  refined,  measured,  and 
reserved.  The  unknown  artist  who  made  the  head  of  Antinous  Monclragone  in 
the  Louvre2  for  Hadrian  seems  to  have  attempted  to  bring  some  of  the  charm 


Fig.  3. — Profile  of  the  Bologna  head.  (From  a photograph  after  the  original.) 


and  beauty  of  the  Lemnia  into  the  face  of  the  Emperor’s  favourite.  It  was 
probably  just  this  Pheidian  quality  in  the  Antinous  that  aroused  Winckelmann’s 
enthusiasm.3 

The  ears  of  the  Lemnia  are  worthy  of  independent  study : they  are  carefully 

1 This  Polykleitan  nose  is  also  to  be  seen  on  the  bronze  head  from  Beneventum  in  the  Louvre  {infra, 
Plate  XIV. ),  which  offers  many  other  analogies  to  the  Lemnia. 

2 Fried.  Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1661  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  70.  Cf.  mouth,  cheeks,  and  parts 
below  the  eyes. 

3 History  of  Anc.  Art , xii.  1,  17  (tr.  Lodge,  vol.  ii.  p.  335). 


HAIR  OF  THE  LEMNIA 


19 


worked,  and  only  just  touched  by  the  hair  at  their  upper  edge.  The  car  is  slenderly 
formed  with  a long  narrow  lobule  distinctly  marked  off  from  the  upper  cartilage. 
The  copies  of  the  Parthenos  head,  as  far  as  they  allow  comparison,  seem  to  have  a 
similar  ear:  we  may  therefore  conclude  that  this  shape  was  the  one  preferred  by 
Pheidias.  This  is  interesting,  because  on  Attic  monuments  of  the  Periklean  epoch 
we  find  a broader,  shorter  type  of  ear,  with  a wide  hollow  and  a short  lobe  ; in  this 
type  the  distance  from  the  end  of  the  lobe  to  the  upper  edge  of  the  hollow  is  usually 
very  small,  if  at  all  greater  than  the  whole  width  of  the  ear.  This  is  the  shape  of  ear 
in  the  Massimi  copy  of  Myron’s  Diskobolos,  and  Myron  probably  learned  it  from 
K ritios  ; 1 we  also  find  it  employed  by  the  artist  of  the  east  pediment  of  Aegina,2 
but  it  does  not  occur  earlier.  Later  it  appears  in  the  Aphrodite  of  the  Louvre  3 
(probably  a copy  after  Alkamenes) ; on  the  Parthenon  frieze4  and  in  other  works  of 
the  period  5 it  is  the  common  type,  although  the  other  more  slender  form  also 
occurs  ;6  in  the  ITegeso-relief,  for  instance,  the  ear  of  the  mistress  has  the  one  shape, 
and  that  of  the  maid  the  other. 

The  hair  of  the  Lemnia,  finally,  deserves  a closer  examination.  It  is  parted 
in  the  middle  from  the  crown  (not  merely  in  front  as  in  earlier  times),  and  combed  to 
cither  side  straight  from  the  parting.  The  Lemnia  appears  to  be  the  earliest  female 
head  with  this  arrangement  of  hair  ; following  immediately  on  it  come  the  famous 
Amazon  heads.  In  the  severe  style  the  hair  was  invariably  combed  forwards  from  the 
crown  without  any  parting,  and  only  parted  to  the  sides  over  the  forehead.7  The 
hair  is  thick  and  full,  rising  in  a plastic  ridge  on  each  side  the  line  of  parting  ; just 
towards  the  back  of  the  head  it  lies  somewhat  flatter.  The  smooth  fillet  presses 
deep  into  this  soft  abundant  mass,  which  is  subdivided  into  a multitude  of 
separate  meshes,  each  with  a movement  of  its  own.  Not  least  charming  are  the 
little  curls  that  cannot  follow  the  track  of  the  rest,  but  lie  separate  in  front  of  the  ear 
and  at  the  back  against  the  neck.  Pheidias,  however,  was  not  the  first  to  employ 
this  motive.  It  was  known  to  the  artist  (Kritios,  as  I believe)  who  made  the  statue 
of  a boy,  from  the  Akropolis,8  and  to  the  artist  of  the  Apollo  of  Mantua  ;9  in  whose 
works  the  motive,  which  seems  quite  foreign  to  archaic  art,  apparently  occurs  for  the 
first  time. 

Despite  the  marvellous  wealth  of  form  and  movement  displayed  by  the  hair  of 
the  Lemnia  on  forehead  and  cheeks,  the  treatment  distinctly  follows  an  earlier 
tradition.  The  general  form  of  the  front  hair  is  that  of  an  undulating  mass,  with 
a regular  rise  and  fall.  Upon  this  full  mass  and  in  subordination  to  it  the  separate 
meshes  of  hair  are  carved.  They  start  from  the  parting  in  almost  parallel  lines,  but 
soon  lose  themselves  in  a rich  tangle.  This  manner  had  its  rise  in  a fashion,  already 
invented  in  earlier  archaic  art,  of  long  front  hair10  rendered  by  a solid  undulating 

1 See  the  head,  'Etprifj..  dpx ■ 1888,  PI.  3 (cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckehnannsprogr . p.  150). 

2 This  pediment  belongs  to  the  early  fifth  century,  as  can  no  longer  be  doubted  after  the  discovery  of  the 
Athenian  Treasury  in  Delphi. 

3 Gazette  Archdol.  1887,  PI.  30.  Cf.  infra , p.  82.  * Cf.  the  beautiful  head  of  the  so-called  ‘ Peitho.’ 

5 E.g.  the  horseman-relief  in  the  Villa  Albani  (Plebig,  Museums,  759)  ; the  statue  of  the  Coll.  Jacobsen 
{Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  70);  the  Barberini  Suppliant,  etc. 

6 E.g.  in  the  head  of  Iris  on  the  Parthenon  frieze. 

7 This  older  manner  still  appears  on  the  Barberini  Suppliant,  which  in  other  respects  is  a work  of  the 
free  style,  and  at  a much  later  date  on  the  Artemis  head  wrongly  placed  on  the  Artemis  Colonna  in  Berlin 
(Skulpt.  59). 

8 Cf.  5°th  Berl.  Winckehnannsprogr.  p.  150.  The  head,  ’E tprjfj..  dpx ■ 1888,  PI.  3. 

9 The  replicas  are  quoted  50th  Berl.  Winckehnannsprogr.  p.  139,  Note  61. 

10  Cf.  e.g.  Ath.  Mitth.  1889,  PI.  3 to  the  left.  Sometimes  only  the  mass  was  given  plastically,  and  the 
lines  of  hair  were  painted  upon  it,  e.g.,  Ath.  Mitth.  1879,  PI.  5,  6,  1. 


20 


PHEIDIAS 


mass  with  parallel  inner  wave-lines.  In  the  later  archaic  period,  this  type  of  headdress 
was  supplemented  by  one  more  artificial,  but  only  to  be  taken  up  again  with  greater 
energy  in  the  period  of  the  severe  style  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  It 
remained  very  popular  for  female  figures  both  then  and  down  to  the  early  stages  of 
the  fine  style,  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  as  is  testified  by  numerous  Attic 
vases,1  Greek  terra-cottas,  bronzes,2  and  coins.3  Among  larger  works  of  art  are  to  be 
named  the  foremost  of  the  Charites  on  the  famous  Akropolis  relief  of  severe  style  and 
the  Athena  seated  upon  a rock  on  one  of  the  Olympia  metopes  ;4  the  undulating 
mass,  with  its  regular  rise  and  fall,  is  perfectly  distinct  in  the  Athena,  though  the 
separate  lines  of  hair,  which  once  were  painted,  are  now  obliterated.  This  whole  system 
disappears  from  Greek  art  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  ; the  rendering  of  the 
front  hair  as  a solid  mass  was  gradually  given  up,  and  the  separate  meshes  were  made 
freer  and  more  independent.  Undulating  front  hair  was  still  in  favour,  but  it  was 
rendered  quite  differently  ; it  was  compounded  of  loose  separate  masses,  as  may  be 
seen  on  heads  of  the  Parthenon  frieze,  in  the  Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes,  the  Barberini 
Suppliant,5  and  others.  The  earlier  formation  was  retained  only,  as  on  certain  coins,6 
when  older  types  were  expressly  copied. 

Later  artists  must  have  studied  the  hair  of  the  Lemnia,  for  its  influence  makes 
itself  felt  in  many  works,  as  for  instance  in  the  hair  of  the  beautiful  bronze  Camillus 
of  the  Capitol,7  which  would  be  executed  just  at  a time  when  Pheidias  appears  to 
have  been  held  in  special  honour. 

The  proportions  of  the  body  still  have  to  be  touched  upon.  They  have  a 
peculiarity,  which  has  already  been  accurately  observed  by  L.  Schorn,8  who  re- 
cognized that  the  legs  of  the  Dresden  statue  were  somewhat  too  short.  According 
to  normal  proportions  (in  the  Doryphoros,  for  instance)  the  length  of  leg  from  the 
upper  edge  of  the  knee-cap  to  the  sole  is  iust  three  times  that  of  the  face,  measured 
from  the  root  of  the  hair  ; thus,  while  the  upright  leg  of  the  Lemnia  ought  to 
measure  0’582,  it  is,  as  the  measurements  show,  some  centimetres  too  short.  Schorn 
has  already  suggested  that  the  statue  was  originally  placed  rather  high,  so  that,  the 
upper  part  being  seen  foreshortened,  the  statue  would  appear  in  the  right  proportion. 
This  supposition  is  borne  out  by  the  forward  bend  of  the  head,  which  would  produce 
an  excellent  effect  if  viewed  from  below.  It  must  therefore  be  assumed  that  the 

1 In  the  severe  style  exceedingly  common  ; e.g.,  Wiener  Vor/egebldtter,  v.  2,  5 (Athena)  ; 7>  1 (Hetaira)  ; 
vii.  6,  Benndorf,  Griech.  Vasenb.  PI.  19,  3,  36,  8.  In  the  earlier  fine  style,  e.g.  in  the  bride  of  the  Sabouroff 
marriage  vase  {Co//.  Sab.  PI.  58),  the  Athena  of  the  Kadmos-hydria  (Berlin,  2634),  and  others. 

2 Examples  in  terra-cottas  of  the  severe  style  are  very  common.  For  bronzes  cf.  B.C.H.  1891,  PI.  9,  10  ; 
Frohner,  Bronzes  Grt’au,  PI.  27. 

3 E.g.  Syracuse  the  Demareteia  (Head,  Guide , 17,  33  ; Coinage  of  Syracuse,  PI.  I.  10),  and  the  succeeding 
severe  and  severe-fine  coins  of  the  so-called  transitional  style,  Head,  Coinage  of  Syracuse,  PI.  2,  2,  6,  7 ; 
3,  2 = Guide,  17,  37.  Also  the  female  heads  of  the  severe-fine  style  in  Segesta  (Wiener  Nuinism. 
Zeitschr.  1886,  PI.  7,  11),  Panclosia  (Head,  Guide,  PL  15,  11=  our  Plate  VI.  8),  Metapontum  (where  a 
beautiful  Bacchic  head  with  this  hair  also  occurs.  Friedlander  v.  Sallet,  Beri.  Miinzkab.  No.  73 1 )»  and 
Terina  (Berlin)  example  of  the  severe  style  ( loc . cit.  No.  688) ; then  the  earlier  type  of  the  Athena  head  of 
Thurii  (Head,  Guide,  25,  17  = our  Plate  VI.  5),  and  its  numerous  repetitions  in  other  towns  of  lower  Italy 
(Herakleia,  Velia,  Neapolis,  Cumae,  Hyria,  Nola,  and  others).  All  these  types  of  coins  originate  in  the  middle 
decade  of  the  fifth  century  (cf.  infra,  p.  104). 

4 The  somewhat  earlier  relief  of  the  flower-girl  from  Pharsalos  (Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  41)  may 
also  be  quoted. 

5 Notably  also  the  female  heads  upon  coins,  which  follow  immediately  on  the  types  enumerated  above 
in  note  3. 

6 Especially  the  numerous  repetitions  of  the  earlier  type  of  Athena  from  Thurii  in  the  towns  mentioned 
above  (cf.  infra,  p.  106). 

7 Helbig,  Museums,  No.  607. 

8 In  the  Ama/thea,  quoted  supra,  p.  6.  Feuerbach  and  Hettner  agree  with  him. 


DRAPERY  AND  POSE  OF  THE  LEMNIA 


2  I 

Lcmnia  did  not,  like  many  of  the  statues  in  the  Akropolis,  stand  on  a low  pedestal, 
but  upon  a higher  base  in  the  form  of  a column  or  pillar,  such  as  was  customary  in 
earlier  times  both  on  the  Akropolis  and  elsewhere.  Excavations  on  the  Akropolis 
have  brought  to  light  numerous  bases  of  this  kind  from  pre-Persian  times,  the  most 
celebrated  being  that  supporting  the  statue  by  Antenor.1  Later  this  mode  became 
more  rare,  and  if  the  Lcmnia  was  really  raised  upon  a pillar  or  column,  Pheidias  was 
in  this  again  submitting  to  an  earlier  tradition.2 

In  the  best  copies  of  the  Parthenos  the  leg  is  also  rather  short,  though  less  so 
than  in  the  Lcmnia.  It  is  probable  that,  in  a colossal  image  made  to  be  looked  at 
relatively  close,  Pheidias  kept  the  lower  part  a little  short,  because  to  a spectator 
standing  near  the  upper  part  would  naturally  appear  considerably  reduced.3 

Thus  the  extant  works  confirm  the  traditional  reputation  enjoyed  by  Pheidias 
for  his  delicate  knowledge  of  optical  laws.  And  the  statues  of  Pheidias  rank  with 
the  Parthenon,  which  as  is  known  surpasses  every  other  antique  structure  in  its 
optical  effects. 


V.  Drapery  and  Pose  of  the  Lemnia. 

We  still  have  to  discuss,  in  the  dress  and  the  position  of  the  legs,  the  most 
important  factors  in  the  general  effect  produced  by  the  statue. 

Even  the  type  of  dress  Pheidias  found  ready  to  his  hand,  and  actually  in  use  for 
Athena,  as  is  clearly  proved  by  a relief  and  a small  statue,  both  from  the  Athenian 
Akropolis4  (Pigs.  4 and  5).  These  are  at  the  same  time  the  closest  antecedents  to 
the  Lemnia  of  Pheidias  that  can  be  pointed  out.  The  dress  is  the  same  on  all  three 
monuments  ; it  consists  of  the  Doric  peplos,  made  of  a simple  piece  of  strong  woollen 
stuff  fastened  upon  the  shoulders.5 6  It  falls  over  from  the  neck,  so  that  the  upper 
portion  of  the  body  is  covered  with  a double  piece  of  drapery.  On  the  right  side  it 
is  open,  but  is  prevented  from  gaping  by  the  girdle  which  is  put  on  over  the  whole,  so 
as  to  confine  the  diplo'is  also.  A mass  of  pictorial  material  preserved  on  Attic  vases 
enables  us  to  specify  with  tolerable  precision  the  date  at  which  this  dress  was  intro- 
duced into  Athens.0  It  is  absolutely  unknown  in  the  period  of  the  severe  style,  which 
from  the  find  of  the  Persian  debris  must  be  dated  before  480  ; at  this  time  the  women 
wear  exclusively  the  Ionic  linen  chiton.  To  help  us  to  date  the  succeeding  stages  of 
Attic  vase-painting,  we  have,  in  addition  to  the  finely  graduated  development  traceable 
in  the  paintings  themselves,  and  to  epigraphical  criteria,  certain  definite  points 
afforded  by  dated  sculpture,  such  as  the  Tyrant-slayers,  the  metopes  and  the  frieze 
of  the  Parthenon,  and,  finally,  the  reliefs  of  the  Nike  temple  and  its  balustrades. 
Grouping  the  vases  upon  this  basis,  it  results  that  even  in  the  transitional  vases  of ‘fine 


1 Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1887,  p.  139.  Cf .J.H.S.  1890,  215  ; Ath.  Mitth.  1890,  126. 

2 One  is  reminded  of  an  anecdote  told  in  Tzetzes,  Chit.  8,  340  seq.,  353  seq.  (Overbeck,  S.  Q.  772,  810), 

which,  though  a late  invention,  must  contain  a kernel  of  truth  : it  certainly  implies  the  existence  of  a statue 

by  Pheidias  set  upon  a column  and  especially  constructed  for  its  high  position.  For  the  competition  with 

Alkamenes  which  is  the  second  element  in  the  anecdote  cf.  p.  84  and  note. 

3 Cf.  Brunn,  K.  G.  i.  195. 

4 Relief:  AxXtiov  apx.  1888,  103,  123;  Ath.  Mitth.  1890,  22,  9.  Statue:  Sybel,  Ratal.  5003;  Roscher’s 

Lex.  i.  695,  35  ; Studniczka,  Zur  Gesch.  d.  Altgr.  Traclit.  p.  142  ; ’E <p.  apx ■ 1887,  PI.  8,  p.  148  seq.  ; Ath. 
Mitth.  1890,  22,  8. 

6 Cf.  Studniczka,  loc.  cit.  141  seq. 

6 For  the  change  in  dress  at  Athens  in  the  fifth  century  cf.  Bohlau,  De  Re  Vestiaria  Graeca,  p.  56  sqq.  ; Stud- 
niczka, Zur  Gesch.  d.  Altgr.  Traclit,  p.  26  sqq. ; Rom.  Mitth.  ii.  54  ; Winter,  Die  Jung.  Attischen  Vasen,  p.  27  sqq. ; 
Benndorf,  Jahrb.  d.  Oesteri . Kunstsamml.  xii.  1,  p.  53. 


Fig.  4. — Athena  on  a relief  from  the  Akropolis. 


DRAPERY  AND  POSE  OF  THE  LEMNIA 


23 


severe  ’ style,  dating  from  480  to  approximately  465,  the  Doric  peplos  was  still  but 
little  known  in  Athens.  Only  rare  examples,  on  young  girls  and  on  Athena,  occur  at 
this  time  : in  these  the  peplos  is  not  girt  over  the 
diplois,  but  it  is  either  left  loose  or  girt  out  of  sight 
beneath  it ; in  the  latter  case  it  is  drawn  over 
the  girdle  so  as  to  form  a kolpos  that  falls  more 
or  less  low.1  Now  these  are  the  two  modes  in  which 
the  Doric  peplos  makes  its  appearance  in  Pelopon- 
nesian art,  where  it  occurs  frequently  in  the  severe 
style  about  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  As  a rule 
it  is  ungirt  ; yet  it  is  frequently  sewn  together, 
instead  of  being  open  at  the  side.  Some  important 
artist  of  the  period,  circ.  B.C.  500 — Hagelaidas  perhaps 
—must  have  adopted  this  dress  for  a statuary  type  of 
which  we  have  the  reiterated  echo  in  numerous  works.2 
One  of  its  distinguishing  marks  is  the  severe  sym- 
metrical arrangement  of  the  folds  of  the  diplo'is  ; the 
edge  forms  a level  line  in  the  middle  both  back  and 
front,  and  then  falls  down  to  either  side  in  corre- 
sponding folds.  The  attitude  allows  the  one  leg  to 
be  just  a trifle  relaxed.3  This  Peloponnesian  type 
had  an  immense  influence,  extending  far  beyond  the 
narrow  Peloponnesian  school  ; 4 figures  reproducing  it 
have  been  found  even  as  far  as  Lykia,5  in  Pantika- 


Fig.  5.- 


-Statuette  of  Athena  from  the  Akropolis. 
(From  a drawing.) 


paion,6  and  among  the  Phoenicians.7 8  The  artists  of 
the  Olympian  temple  sculptures  were  also  under  its 
influence  : they  make  use  both  of  the  ungirt  peplos 
and  of  the  peplos  with  the  kolpos  under  the  diploisk 
Parian  sculpture  seems  to  have  contributed  especially 
to  the  propagation  of  the  type.9  It  is  also  found  in 
statuette  from  Magna  Graecia  represents  Athena  clothed  in  this  manner;10  other 
bronzes  of  the  same  provenance  show  Athena  striding,  but  clad  as  in  the  type  where 
she  is  standing  tranquilly.11  The  artists  of  the  Hestia  Giustiniani  and  of  the 


the  west.  A superb  bronze 


1 Ungirt  : Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  14,  quite  young  girl.— Potsherd  of  the  Akropolis,  found  by  S.E.  corner  of  the 
Parthenon,  but  certainly  not  among  the  Persian  debris  ; Nike  with  Akrostolion. — With  the  kolpos  : Gerhard, 
Attserl.  Vasenb.  300,  301  girl;  Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  19,  Athena. — The  same  two  kinds,  ungirt  and  with  the 
kolpos,  appear  on  two  of  the  Charites  in  the  well-known  relief  (Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  881),  the  original  of  which 
is  about  contemporary  with  the  Tyrant-slayers,  and  must  therefore  have  been  made  about  470. 

2 Especially  in  the  female  supporting  figures  of  the  Corinthian  mirrors  and  similar  little  Peloponnesian 
bronzes.  Cf.  Olympia , iv.  Die  Bronzen,  p.  21,  56;  27;  Athen.  Mitth.  iii.  PI.  B.  Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  PI.  2,  2. 

3 For  the  corresponding  male  type  in  Argive  art,  cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  124  seq. 

4 Cf.  e.g.  the  Boeotian  terra-cottas  of  the  type  Dumont-Chaplain,  Cdram.  ii.  PI.  3. 

5 Three  torsos  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  in  Parian  marble,  from  Xanthos.  A.  H.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculp,  i.  96 — 98. 

6 Gilt  wooden  figure  from  Kertsch,  in  the  Louvre,  about  50  cm.  high,  without  head. 

7 Phoenician  sarcophagus  from  Sicily,  Perrot-Chipiez,  Hist,  de  VArt,  iii.  189,  Fig.  134. 

8 Standing  women  on  the  east  pediment ; Hesperides  and  standing  Athena  on  the  metopes.  Cf.  also 
Athena  in  the  Terme  Museum  at  Rome  (mentioned  above,  p.  16,  note  7). 

9 Cf.  the  close  proof  which  I have  endeavoured  to  give  in  Arch.  Studien,  H.  Brunn  dargebracht  1893, 
p.  69  seq. 

10  Gazette  Arch.  1881,  PI.  7,  an  undoubted  Greek  original.  On  the  other  head,  the  Pozzuoli  bronze,  Arch. 
Ztg.  1881,  PI.  2,  is  only  a late  imitation,  with  the  folds  much  weakened. 

11  In  the  Brit.  Mus.  from  the  Castellani  Coll.  Cf.  above,  p.  16,  notes  1,  3.  In  Berlin,  Inv.  6242.  Both  are 
originals  of  470  —460 ; the  striding  Athena  from  the  Akropolis,  Arch.  Ztg.  1873,  PI.  10,  is  probably  pre-Persian, 


24 


PH  El  DIAS 


originals  1 of  the  ‘ dancers  ’ from  Herculaneum  take  a more  independent  line  : they 
give  up  the  symmetrical  folds,  and  aim  at  a more  faithful  reproduction  of  nature. 
The  Herculaneum  figures  come  at  the  end  of  the  series  ; in  them  the  relaxation  of 
the  one  leg  begins  to  be  emphasized.  Possibly  Kalamis  and  Pythagoras  treated 
standing  female  figures  in  this  manner. 

Athens  at  first  fought  shy  of  this  widely  spread  Peloponnesian  type  ; traces  of 
its  influence  can  certainly  be  detected,2  but,  as  vases  show,  the  Doric  peplos  was  not 
popular  in  Athens  until  somewhere  about  B.C.  465.  From  that  time,  however,  it 
became  more  and  more  frequent,  though  it  is  transformed  in  the  independent  Attic 
manner  : it  became  customary  to  gird  the  peplos,  open  at  the  side,  over  the  diplo'is — 
a plain,  homely  fashion,  which  elsewhere  was  only  employed  occasionally  for  atten- 
dants,3 but  was  at  Athens  exalted  into  a dress  of  distinction.  At  first  the  Ionic 
chiton  was  still  worn  underneath,  as  in  the  Athena  of  the  Akropolis  statuette,  which 
is  one  of  the  earliest  monuments  that  reproduce  this  new  fashion,  and  in  the  Athena 
on  some  vases.4  From  the  first  the  dress  was  by  no  means  reserved  to  Athena  : it 
was  given  indifferently  to  any  young  girls,  divine  or  human.  And  by  the  side  of  this 
new  mode  the  old  ungirt  Doric  peplos  now  appears  quite  frequently.  The  dress, 
however,  was  evidently  looked  upon  as  a foreign  innovation  : wherever  a company  of 
young  girls,  Muses  or  Nereids,  for  instance,  is  represented,  at  first  only  one  or  the 
other  wears  it.  Of  the  two  Eleusinian  divinities,  Kore,  the  maiden,  is  the  first  to  wear 
the  Doric  garment ; and  only  later  was  it  given  also  to  Demeter.5  The  dress  only 
became  really  naturalized  after  440,  on  the  vases  which  correspond  to  the  Parthenon 
frieze,  and  then  upon  the  later  vases,  contemporary  with  the  Nike  temple  and  the 
Erechtheion.  Alongside  the  special  Attic  fashion  of  girding  over  the  diplo'is , the  old 
fashion  with  the  under  girding  and  the  kolpos  now  came  again  into  vogue.6 

Returning  now  to  the  Lemnia,  we  see  that  the  dress  in  which  Pheidias  repre- 

1 Comparetti  de  Petra,  Villa  d’Ercol,  Tl.  14.  These  statues  are  certainly  only  late  copies,  and  not,  as  has 
been  supposed,  Greek  originals.  This  is  convincingly  shown  by  such  external  marks  as  the  plinths,  the  technique, 
the  buttons  on  the  shoulders,  etc. 

2 As  in  terra-cotta  dolls,  certainly  Attic,  of  the  type  Dumont-Chaplain,  dram.  ii.  PI.  4.  The  Attic  origin 
is  less  sure  in  some  bronzes  from  Athens  (cf.  supra,  p.  23,  note  11) ; it  may  probably  be  admitted  however  for  the 
beautiful  statuette,  Frbhner,  Coll.  Griau,  Bronzes  Ant.  PL  27,  which  may  be  dated  circ.  460. 

3 Cf.  the  two  Olympian  pediments,  where  it  is  worn  by  the  attendants  (these  two  figures,  it  is  true,  are 
only  preserved  copies),  while  the  mistresses  wear  the  established  Doric  types.  Cf.  also  the  maid  behind 
Odysseus  on  the  Polygnotan  vase  with  the  murder  of  the  suitors. 

4 Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  54,  and  the  Polygnotan  Argonaut  vase,  Mon.  xi.  39. 

5 Cf.  Arch.  Anzeiger,  1891,  p.  118,  114. 

e The  following  is  a selection  of  characteristic  examples  : I.  Peplos  girt  over  the  diplo'is  : vases  of  the  time 
circ.  465 — 450  ; diilite  dram.  i.  64  (Eileithyia),  ii.  36,  41  (both  Artemis)  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  40  (Artemis) ; Berlin, 
2381  (Nike,  front  view),  2521  (Maiden)  ; Frohner,  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Exhibition,  No.  51  (Maidens  playing 
musical  instruments,  the  one  in  front  view). — Rather  later,  from  about  450  : Gerhard,  Auserl.  Vas.  243,  291,  305  ; 
Mas.  Greg.  ii.  19,  2.  21,  2 ; Dumont-Chaplain,  dram.  ii.  PI.  suppl.  A.  (Athena)  ; Sticks.  Ber.  1875,  PI.  3 c. 
(Athena);  J.  H.  S.  xi.  11  (Athena)  ; A.  Z.  1881,  PI.  15,  16  ; Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  57;  Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  53  ; Wiener 
Vorlegebl.  E,  12;  Heydemann,  Vasenb.  i.  I;  Overbeck,  At/,  d.  Kunstmyth.  PI.  12,  2 (Amymone)  ; Monum. 
d.  Inst.  x.  39  (Aglauros,  not  Athena). — About  440;  Elite  dram.  ii.  26,  62,  72,  86  A (one  muse  out  of  seven)  ; 
i.  42,  47  ; Coll.  Sabouroff,  55  ; Millin,  Vases  Feints,  i.  54;  Overbeck,  Atlas,  PI.  15,  31  ; Mus.  Gregor,  ii.  82,  1 
(Medea)  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  ii.  15. — Towards  430  and  later,  on  vases  in  the  style  of  Aristophanes  and  Meidias,  the 
dress  has  become  the  prevalent  one. — II.  Ungirt  peplos.  Earlier  instances,  from  circ.  465:  Mon.  d.  Inst.  viii. 
5,  2 ; i.  6,  37,  38  ; Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  60;  lilite  dr.  ii.  57  (Artemis)  ; Mus.  Greg.  ii.  24,  1. — About  circ.  450 — 
440  : Berlin,  2388  (Muses),  Mon.  d.  Inst.  5,  37  (Muse)  ; Mus.  Greg.  ii.  13,  2 ; 15,  2.  19,  2.  20,  1.  63.  2 ; Gerhard, 
Auserl.  Vas.  302,  5;  Overbeck,  All.  d.  Kunstm.  PL  15,  13.  11.  23;  18,  15;  Elite  dram.  1,  83.91;  Coll. 
Sabouroff,  PL  63,  55  ; Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  55,  57.  What  Studniczka  (Z.  Geschichte  d.  Tracht,  27  seq. ) has 
endeavoured  to  ascertain  from  literature  with  regard  to  the  dress  accords  on  the  whole  with  the  vases  ; he  is 
however  mistaken  in  holding  ( loc . cit.  142  seq.)  that  the  ancient  image  of  the  Polias  already  wore  the  peplos  like 
the  Parthenos.  The  prize  amphorae,  on  which  he  relies,  belong  only  to  the  fourth  century,  when  the  dress  of  the 
Parthenos  was  an  established  type  ; the  garment  never  appears  on  the  old  representation. 


DRAPERY  AND  POSE  OF  THE  LEMNIA 


25 


scntcd  her  had  already  been  given  to  Athena  in  Attic  art,  though  its  invention  was 
still  quite  recent,  and  by  no  means  established  and  generally  accepted.  The 
individuality  that  lay  in  the  thick  simple  Doric  garment  was  still  felt  in  all  its  fresh- 
ness. The  image  of  the  pure  and  powerful  maiden  received  thereby  a material 
completion,  while  it  was  only  with  the  girding  over  the  diplo'is  that  the 
dress  became  properly  expressive  of  Attic  sobriety  and  compactness.  On  vases 
of  the  time  about  460 — 450  there  are  many  figures  that  clearly  reproduce  this 
character.  These  are  the  vases  that  on  other  grounds  may  be  brought  into  close 
connexion  with  the  painting  of  Polygnotos. 

The  two  marble  works,  of  the  Akropolis,  named  above,  cannot  belong  to  a 
very  much  earlier  period.  The  relief  must  be  dated  at  the  earliest  about  460,  and 
the  statuette  somewhere  circ.  465,  the  time  when  the  first  examples  of  the  new  dress 
appear  also  upon  vases.  It  has  been  unnecessarily  supposed  that  the  statuette  came 
from  the  Persian  debris  : this  seems  to  be  most  unlikely.  It  is  however  probable, 
from  the  circumstances  of  their  discovery,  that  both  works  came  to  be  buried  when 
the  Periklean  Parthenon  was  built.1  A summary  treatment  of  the  past  is  customary 
in  periods  of  great  progress  ; and  the  excavations  on  the  Akropolis  show  how  truly 
this  applies  to  the  time  of  Perikles.  Style  and  workmanship  as  well  as  the  Athenian 
fashion  of  wearing  the  girdle  prove  both  works  to  be  purely  Attic.2  The  Doric 
garment  of  Peloponnesian  art  with  its  symmetrical  folds,  adopted  also  by  the 
Parian  sculptors,  is  completely  given  up,  and  replaced  by  independent  fresh 
observation  of  nature. 

The  promise  contained  in  these  two  works  was  more  than  fulfilled  by  Pheidias. 
The  hard,  constrained,  and  timid  touches  that  may  still  be  detected  in  statuette  and 
relief  disappear  in  the  Lemnia.  A freer,  more  majestic  air  pervades  the  whole. 
Even  the  diplo'is  is  no  longer  so  short  and  straight,  but  falls  in  greater  fulness,  and 
wherever  on  the  relief  the  folds,  with  their  round  backs,  lie  side  by  side  in  uniform 
monotony,  on  the  statue  the  intermediate  spaces  are  made  to  vary  in  breadth,  while 
the  backs  of  the  folds  no  longer  present  a round,  almost  padded  appearance,  but 
begin  gently  to  sink  and  flatten  in  the  middle. 

.Turning  now  to  consider  the  way  in  which  the  Lemnia  stands,  the  statue  will 
be  found  to  differ  in  this  point  from  the  type  prevalent  in  the  first  half  of  the 
fifth  century,  according  to  which  the  leg  in  action  is  only  slightly  set  free,  and  is 
brought  either  close  to  the  other  or  in  front  of  it,  with  the  foot  flat  on  the  ground. 
In  the  Lemnia  the  leg  is  considerably  more  to  the  side,  so  that  the  foot,  though  not 
raised,  yet  rests  solidly  only  on  the  ball.  Even  in  this,  however,  Pheidias  is  not 
entirely  without  precedent  ; the  Apollo  of  Mantua,  which  has  already  been  mentioned 
on  account  of  the  hair  (p.  19),  differs  from  the  prevalent  type,  in  having  the  same 
broad  posture  with  the  free  leg  very  much  to  the  side.3  Some  of  the  Herculaneum 
maidens  also  come  near  to  the  Lemnia  in  this  respect.  Pheidias  has,  however, 
known  how  to  remove  all  constraint  and  hardness  from  the  posture.  In  the 
Parthenos  he  ventures  upon  a stronger  innovation ; the  free  leg  is  brought  not 
merely  to  the  side,  but  also  drawn  somewhat  back,  so  that  the  heel  is  raised.  The 
leg,  released  from  the  weight  of  the  body,  is  not  completely  at  ease,  as  in  the  case  of 
a person  standing  still,  but  is  slightly  drawn  up  towards  the  other,  as  when  a pause  is 

1 The  relief  appears  to  have  been  built  into  a structure  of  the  Periklean  epoch,  which  has  been  taken  to  be 
the  Ergasterion  of  Pheidias.  The  statue  was  discovered  when  the  foundations  of  the  Museum  were  laid. 

2 Studniczka,  loc.  cit.  ’E<f>.  dpx ■ 1887,  1 53>  unnecessarily  explains  the  Athena  to  be  the  work  of  a Pelopon- 
nesian artist  working  for  Athens. 

3 Cf.  50th  i Seri.  W inckelmannsprogr.  p.  140. 

E 


26 


PHEIDIAS 


made  in  walking.  The  creation  of  later  Argive  art,  with  the  leg  still  drawn  back 
in  the  walking  attitude,  is  exactly  parallel  to  the  pose  introduced  by  Pheidias.1  The 
Argive  scheme  was  not  adopted  in  Attic  art  till  the  period  following  upon  the 
undoubted  works  of  Pheidias.  The  pose  adopted  by  Pheidias  for  the  Parthenos  is 
not  found  in  earlier  works,  and  grew  out  of  the  stage  represented  by  the  Lemnia ; 
it  was  intended  to  give  to  the  figure  freedom  of  movement  without  detracting  from 
its  majesty,  which,  according  to  the  Pheidian  conception,  would  have  been  the  case 
had  the  leg  been  quite  drawn  back  in  the  ordinary  walking  attitude. 

Our  inquiry  has  shown  the  Lemnia  to  be  closely  connected  with  earlier  fore- 
runners, and  yet  to  be  an  absolutely  independent  work,  pervaded  with  a powerful 
personal  spirit.  In  none  of  the  earlier  statues  do  we  find  anything  that  can  be  even 
remotely  compared  with  the  broad  energetic  throw  of  the  draperies,  or  with  the 
eminently  individual  character  of  the  superb  head.  Everything  in  the  statue  betokens 
a fresh  and  genial  spirit,  that  enters  upon  its  course  with  conscious  strength.  The 
Lemnia  is  its  earliest  manifestation  that  is  known  to  us,  and  the  Parthenos  follows 
close  upon  it.  Yet,  according  to  the  received  view,2  which  places  the  birth  of  Pheidias 
at  about  B.C.  500,  the  artist  must  have  been  already  fifty  years  of  age  when  he  created 
the  Lemnia,  so  that  not  only  his  youth  but  the  prime  of  his  manhood,  as  well 
as  the  greater  number  of  his  works,  must  have  fallen  within  the  preceding  period. 
Were  we  to  judge  only  from  the  monuments,  we  should  rather  take  the  Lemnia 
to  be  a work  of  the  artist’s  prime.  This  seems  confirmed  on  the  one  hand  by  the 
bold  freshness  which  even  in  the  Parthenos  had  already  somewhat  faded,  and  on  the 
other  by  that  fidelity  to  earlier  traditions  which  has  been  observed  in  sundry 
particulars. 


VI.  Monuments  related  to  Lemnia  and  to  Parthenos. — The  Athena  Promachos. 

At  this  point  it  becomes  important  to  note  the  existence  of  a number  of 
monuments  which  may  be  grouped  with  the  Lemnia  and  the  Parthenos.  Some  are 
of  the  same  date  or  only  a very  little  earlier  ; others  again  are  later,  but  they  all 
bear  more  or  less  distinct  traces  of  the  personal  style  of  Pheidias  : thus  it  is  about 
B.C.  450 — though  not  earlier — that  we  come  upon  Pheidias  everywhere. 

A statue  of  Artemis3  in  the  Villa  Albani,  of  which  the  head  is  unfortunately 
missing,  may  serve  as  an  example  of  a work  closely  akin  to  the  Lemnia,  though 
of  slightly  earlier  date.  The  coarse  woollen  stuff  is  treated  with  the  same  vigour 
and  naturalness,  but  the  folds  are  still  convex  and  show  no  depression.  The 
majestic  figure  is  clothed  in  the  Doric  peplos  girt  in  the  Attic  manner.  The  peplos 
is  closed  at  the  side,  and  the  part  folded  over  is  unusually  long,  falling  below  the 
knee.  The  right  arm  was  raised,  and  the  left  hand  carried  a young  roe,  in  archaic 
fashion.  The  leg  in  action  is  placed  to  one  side,  as  in  the  Lemnia,  though  its 
movement  is  rather  less  energetic.  Two  heavy  folds  fall  perpendicularly  from 
the  knee. 

Another  work  very  closely  related  to  the  Lemnia  has  been  preserved  in  a torso 

1 For  the  apparently  contemporary  introduction  of  the  ‘ walking  ’ motive  in  Peloponnesian  art,  see  below,  at 
the  end  of  the  chapter  on  Myron.  Cf.  also  Winter,  Die  jiing.  Att.  Vasen. 

2 Brunn,  K.  G.  i.  164  ; after  him  Overbeck  and  others. 

3 No.  662.  Gerhard,  Ant.  Bildw.  Tf.  12;  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  562;  Clarac,  678  F,  1621  B.  ; Helbig, 
Museums,  ii.  856.  The  head,  right  arm,  and  right  foot  are  restored.  The  right  arm  was  raised. 


ATHENA  PROMACHOS 


27 


of  the  Louvre1  and  a replica  in  Madrid.  It  also  represents  a young  girl  wearing 
the  peplos  girt  above  the  diplo'is.  The  simple,  firm,  almost  rough  treatment  of  the 
drapery  recalls  the  Lemnia,  especially  in  the  folds  under  the  girdle.  The  attitude 
is  even  more  vigorous  than  that  of  the  Lemnia,  owing  to  the  feet  being  very  much 
turned  out  ; further,  the  left  foot,  although  not  drawn  back,  is  placed  more  to  the 
side.  The  girdle  consists  of  a wide  band  of  stuff  tied  in  a bow  in  front.  The 
whole  figure  is  so  unconventional,  so  full  of  fresh  individuality  and  natural  simplicity, 
and  through  these  qualities  so  closely  allied  to  the  Lemnia  without  yet  being  in 
the  smallest  degree  an  imitation,  that  I imagine  it  to  represent  another  creation  of 
Pheidias. 

A statue  of  the  Capitol 2 akin  to  the  work  of  Pheidias  but  not  bearing  the  stamp 
of  his  individuality  may  be  placed,  owing  to  its  pose  and  the  treatment  of  the  folds, 
somewhere  between  the  Lemnia  and  the  Parthenos. 

A small  statue  in  the  Lateran  3 corresponds  very  closely  to  the  Parthenos,  and  the 
same  may  be  said  of  a beautiful  statue  in  St.  Petersburg,4  in  which,  however,  are  to  be 
seen  some  slight  indications  of  a later  style.  This  figure  also  represents  a youthful 
goddess  ; she  wears  an  Ionic  chiton  under  the  peplos. 

Many  more  examples  might  be  added,5 6  such  as  a whole  series  of  statues 
which  reproduce  the  main  features  of  the  Parthenos  combined  with  all  sorts 
of  later  traits:  in  most  of  these  one  foot  is  drawn  back  in  the  walking  position.0  It 
is  not  however  my  intention  to  discuss  these  statues  here.  Mention  need  only 
be  made  of  an  Athena  from  Pergamon  which  is  very  closely  related  to  the  Lemnia. 
The  statue  has  wrongly  been  taken  for  an  original,7  whereas  it  is  merely  a copy 
executed  in  the  loose  Pergamenian  manner  after  an  original  by  some  artist  of  the 
fifth  century,  who  utilized  the  Lemnia  for  the  body  of  his  Athena,  but  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  head  betrayed  his  affinities  with  the  school  of  Kalamis,  which  we  shall 
have  to  discuss  in  detail  later  on  (p.  81). 

We  turn  from  this  ugly  Pergamenian  Athena  to  a work  which  has  every  claim 
to  be  mentioned  in  the  present  connexion — namely,  the  Torso  Medici  in  the  Ecole 
des  Beaux-Arts  in  Paris  (I'ig.  6).8  Its  peculiarly  Pheidian  character  has  been  generally 
recognized,9  and  it  has  been  rightly  placed  in  close  relation  to  the  Parthenos  ; its 
affinities  to  the  Lemnia  are  no  less  marked.  It  may  be  said  that  a common  character 
closely  unites  all  three  works.  They  represent  the  same  conception  of  the  maiden 
goddess,  with  the  narrow  hips  of  a boy,  and  the  broad  though  undeveloped  breast  of 
a young  girl.  In  all  three  the  folds  of  the  peplos,  which  is  girt,  are  rendered  with 


1 (a)  Louvre,  Gal.  Denon.  No.  2903,  rather  under  life-size.  Lentelic  marble  ; head  and  right  shoulder  were 

put  on  separately,  and  are  now  lost,  (b)  Madrid  No.  70,  Hiibner  No.  43. 

2 Capitol,  Salone  No.  29,  restored  as  Hygieia  ; the  portrait  head  is  foreign  to  the  statue.  Weight  on  the 
left  leg,  the  right  leg  to  the  side  and  a little  drawn  back,  the  foot  flat  on  the  ground. 

3 Benndorf-Schone,  Catal.  No.  6.  (Phot,  in  the  German  Institute  at  Rome.) 

4 Stephani,  Compte  Rendu,  1881,  PI.  VI.  p.  130.  Cast  in  Dresden.  Cf.  Wochenschrift  f 1 'Class . Philol.  18S5, 
p.  292  ; Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  Anzeiger,  1889,  p.  10.  The  head  does  not  belong  to  the  statue. 

5 Thus  a statue  in  the  Villa  Mattei  (Matz-Duhn  1375)  is  very  similar  to  the  Parthenos,  though  the  weight  is 
thrown  on  the  left  leg. 

6 Some  instances  are  mentioned  by  K.  Lange,  Arch.  Ztg.  1 SS 1 , 197,  n.  2. 

7 Conze,  Sitzungsbericlite  der  Berl.  Akadcmie,  1893,  xvi.  p.  207.  Puchstein,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1S90,  p.  95. 

Kalkmann’s  theory  {Prop,  des  Gesichts,  p.  66),  that  the  head  did  not  originally  belong  to  the  statue,  is  de- 

monstrably false  (see  my  remarks  in  the  Berl.  Philol.  Wochens.  1S94,  p.  1142). 

8 Cf.  Friederichs-Wollers,  Gipsabg.  476  ; Gazette  des  Beaux-Arts,  1890,  i.  281  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Dcnhn. 

No.  1 7 1 . 

9 Puchstein  alone  {Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  p.  90),  starting  from  his  mistaken  conception  of  the  Parthenos,  which 
he  places  in  the  period  of  the  sculptures  of  Olympia,  has  disputed  the  Pheidian  character  of  the  torso. 


Fig.  6. — ‘Torso  Medici.’  (Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts,  Paris.) 


ATHENA  PROMACHOS 


29 


the  same  massive  energy,  and  the  coarse  woollen  stuff  is  indicated  in  the  same  way. 
The  simple  straight  line  at  the  lower  edge  of  the  diplo'is  and  the  converging  folds  at 
the  girdle  are  points  of  special  similarity.  Any  one  who  has  an  eye  for  essentials 
must  admit  that  the  three  form  a close  group  that  stands  out  distinctly  from  other 
extant  creations  of  the  fifth  century.  There  are  of  course  many  differences  in  detail. 
We  have  already  characterized  the  Parthenos  as  a later  work  than  the  Lemnia. 
The  Torso  Medici  will  be  found  to  be  the  latest  of  the  three.  It  displays  a greater 
richness  of  motive,  more  splendour,  but  less  simplicity  and  restraint. 

The  folds  of  the  peplos  are  crowded  closer  together.  In  the  Lemnia  the  groove- 
like depressions  on  the  backs  of  the  folds  practically  only  appear  on  the  diplois  below 
the  girdle,  but  in  the  Torso  Medici  they  also  appear  on  the  large  perpendicular  folds 
over  the  leg  which  bears  the  weight  of  the  body  ; and  they  are  more  regularly  and 
deeply  hollowed.  Further,  in  the  drapery  of  the  Lemnia  a small  round  tube-shaped 
fold  occurs  sometimes  in  the  furrow  between  two  projecting  ridges  A in  the  torso  it  is 
of  much  more  frequent  occurrence.  We  have  already  observed  that,  as  compared 
with  the  Lemnia,  the  Parthenos  produces  a stronger  effect  through  the  greater 
definiteness  in  the  scheme  of  its  draperies.  The  Medici  torso  represents  a still  more 
advanced  stage  of  the  same  tendency.  The  Lemnia  charms  more  than  either  by  the 
greater  naturalness  and  truth  with  which  the  drapery  is  rendered.  In  the  torso  the 
regular  perpendicular  folds  over  the  leg  at  rest,  and  the  manner  in  which  these  folds 
rest  on  the  foot  (a  motive  not  found  in  the  Lemnia),  mark  an  immediate  connexion 
with  the  Parthenos. 

In  addition  to  the  Doric  peplos  the  Medici  figure  wears  the  Ionic  under-garment. 
This  in  itself  is  no  argument  for  a later  date.  On  the  contrary,  this  double  garment 
seems  to  have  found  great  favour  in  Athens  as  a transitional  fashion  2 just  at  the  time 
when  the  Doric  peplos  was  introduced  ; it  appears  frequently  on  Attic  vases  between 
450 — 440,  and  particularly  in  representations  of  Athena.3  But  the  artistic  treatment 
of  this  garment  on  the  torso,  and  the  carefully  thought  out  contrast  between  the  fine 
clinging  linen  chiton  on  the  right  leg  and  the  heavy  woollen  folds  which  cover  the 
left  leg,  while  leaving  the  right  free,  make  it  probable  that  the  torso  is  a later  work 
than  the  Parthenos.  Already  in  the  Parthenos  there  is,  by  comparison  with  the 
Lemnia,  an  attempt  to  emphasize  the  leg  in  action  by  means  of  the  clinging  drapery. 
By  the  arrangement  of  drapery  adopted  in  the  Medici  torso  the  desired  contrast 
between  the  two  legs  becomes  still  richer  and  more  effective. 

The  artist’s  principal  aim  in  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  linen  garment  was  to 
express  the  nature  of  the  material.  This  he  did  by  means  of  fine  parallel  lines 
running  downwards.  Actual  folds  are  few  and  broadly  rendered.  This  treatment 
bears  distinct  traces  of  the  archaic  tradition.  These  small  wavy  stripes  are  only  a 
freer  form  of  the  archaic  method  of  representing  linen.  The  archaic  method,  however, 
as  is  well  known,  did  not  combine  with  this  technique  any  attempt  at  the  rendering 
of  real  folds.4  The  linen  chitons  of  the  Charites  on  a relief  which  must  be  dated 
about  B.C.  473  are  still  without  folds,  but  completely  covered  with  fine  wave-lines. 
In  the  torso  Medici  we  find  this  linen  technique  combined  with  a broad  treatment 
of  folds.  The  next  step  in  development  was  to  abandon  the  fine  lines  and  to 
replace  them  by  real  folds.  On  a metope  of  the  Parthenon  (XXIX.  S.  side)  the 

1 Cf.  Puchstein’s  section,  toe.  cit.  p.  94.  This  observation,  which  is  emphasized  by  Puchstein  himself, 
loc.  cit.,  ought  to  have  sufficed  to  prevent  him  from  separating  the  torso  Medici  from  rheidian  work. 

2 As  in  the  Athena  from  the  Akropolis,  Fig.  5. 

3 Cf.  Arch.  Ztg.  1876,  Tf.  ii.  (Berlin  2354). 

4 Cf.  Studniczka’s  excellent  remarks,  Rom.  Mitth.  iii.  1888,  p.  287  seq. 


30 


PHEIDIAS 


same  method  is  employed  as  in  the  torso,  but  on  the  frieze  and  the  pediments 1 the 
linen  of  the  Ionic  chiton  is  scarcely  even  characterized  by  parallel  wave-lines.  In 
their  place  we  have  a multitude  of  small  real  folds,  which  though  not  strictly  true  to 
nature  produce  a very  rich  effect.  The  artist  of  the  torso  combined  the  wave-lines 
with  a few  large  folds,  and  thereby  attained  an  infinitely  more  natural  effect. 
Hence  it  may  be  dated  as  contemporary  with  the  metopes,  and  earlier  than  the  frieze 
and  the  pediments.  In  the  latter  two  the  woollen  garments  are  already  less  heavily 
rendered,  and  the  contrast  between  the  wool  and  the  linen  is  less  emphasized.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  famous  Amazon  statues  belong  to  the  same  stage  as  the  torso.2 
True,  the  treatment  of  the  linen  stuff  in  each  of  the  three  Amazon  types  varies  con- 
siderably in  detail,  but  the  principle  is  the  same,  and  in  the  Mattei  type  not  only  the 
principle  but  the  whole  manner  is  that  of  our  torso.  The  linen  stuff  is  indicated  by 
the  same  closely  drawn  parallel  wave-lines,  and  only  the  main  folds  are  represented. 
Although  the  wave-lines  almost  tend  to  become  real  folds,  thus  showing  the 
Amazon  to  be  the  later  work,  the  stylistic  affinities  of  the  two  statues  make  it 
probable  that  they  are  nearly  connected.  But  we  shall  have  to  speak  of  the 
Amazon  again. 

The  rich  drapery  of  our  Athena  is  completed  by  a mantle  thrown  over  the  left 

shoulder.  It  is  of  the  same  strong  woollen  stuff  as  the  peplos,  and  is  treated  in  the 

same  manner. 

The  torso  is  a copy  of  Roman  date,3  as  is  evident  to  any  expert  from  the  style 
of  the  work.4  Though  good  on  the  whole,  it  is,  like  most  copies,  not  without  dull  and 
lifeless  parts.  Other  but  much  inferior  copies  of  the  same  original  are  in  existence: 
these  are  a small  statuette,  a torso  three-quarters  life-size,  and  a relief,  all  three  in 
Athens.5 6  The  relief  is  specially  important : on  it  an  olive-tree  with  an  owl  appears 
beside  the  goddess,  whence  it  is  probable  that  the  original  stood  on  the  Akropolis  ; 
the  relief  also  shows  that  the  statue  carried  the  shield  raised  in  the  left 

hand.  This  agrees  with  certain  indications  on  the  colossal  torso  itself.  The  left 
upper  arm  is  lowered  and  held  somewhat  away  from  the  body ; the  forearm 

was  extended  sideways  and  slightly  raised  ; the  hollow  where  it  was  let  in  is  still  to 
be  seen,0  together  with  a broad  contact-surface  at  the  back  of  the  shoulder,  which 
proves  that  some  large  object,  which  can  only  have  been  the  shield,7  was  fastened  on 
at  this  spot.  Held  in  this  way,  a considerable  portion  of  the  inner  side  of  the  shield 
would  be  visible  from  the  front,  as  is  also  the  case  on  the  relief.  The  mantle  filled 
the  space  between  shield  and  body,  while  shield  and  mantle  together  formed  a 
magnificent  background  for  the  side  of  the  figure  represented  at  rest. 

The  other  side  was  more  animated.  The  right  arm  was  not  close  to  the  body,  but, 
as  the  torso  and  the  relief  show,  it  was  placed  somewhat  to  one  side.  As  the  goddess 
held  the  shield  in  her  left  hand  as  if  in  readiness  for  the  fray,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  in  the  right  hand,  which  is  also  missing  on  the  relief,  she  held  the  spear,  her 
weapon  of  attack.  The  statue  stands  like  the  Parthenos,  the  foot  in  action  being 
set  back  and  the  heel  raised,  not  flat  on  the  ground  as  in  the  Lemnia.  This  foot 

1 Cf.  the  so-called  1 Peitho  ’ on  the  frieze,  and  the  female  figures  in  the  right  angle  of  the  east  pediment. 

2 For  the  three  types  see  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1886,  p.  14  ; cf.  infra , chapter  on  Kresilas,  p.  128  sqq. 

3 Puchstein,  loc.  cit.,  is  of  the  same  opinion. 

4 Moreover  the  marble  seems  actually  to  be  Italian,  as  Nibby  first  noticed. 

5 Von  Sybel,  Ath.  Mitth.  1880,  102,  Taf.  5. 

6 Both  arms  and  the  head  were  made  of  separate  pieces. 

7 Just  the  contrary  of  what  Wolters  maintains  in  the  note  to  Friederichs’s  Bausteine,  82  (Fried. -Wolters,  476). 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  there  was  nothing  here  but  a nude  forearm  and  a lance. 


ATHENA  PROMACHOS 


31 


moreover  is  much  more  turned  out  than  in  either  of  the  other  statues,  and  in  harmony 
with  tin's  movement  the  head  is  turned  to  the  right.  This  point,  not  visible  on  the 
coarse  and  mutilated  relief,  is  made  quite  clear  by  the  small  torso  in  Athens  1 and  by 
the  Torso  Medici.  In  both  the  bunch  of  hair  at  the  back  of  the  neck  is  pushed  towards 
the  left  shoulder,  and  in  the  large  torso  the  hollow  for  the  insertion  of  the  upper  part 
of  the  knot  of  hair  (now  lost  with  the  head)  plainly  proves  that  the  head  was  turned 
to  the  right.2  On  the  head  rested,  as  the  relief  shows,  the  helmet  with  its  splendid 
triple  plume,  similar  to  the  one  worn  by  the  Parthenos. 

Thus  restored,  the  statue,  although  standing  so  firmly  and  tranquilly,  becomes 
instinct  with  life  and  almost  with  animation.  An  Athenian  coin,  struck  in  Imperial 
times,3  shows  that  the  right  hand  did  not  lean  on  the  lance,  but  grasped  it  low  down  as 
if  to  raise  it  for  the  attack.  The  similar  pose  of  the  figure,  the  raised  shield,  and  the 
turn  of  the  head  prove  beyond  a doubt  that  this  coin  reproduces  the  original  of 
our  torso.4  This  conception  of  the  goddess  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the  pacific 
Lemnia  who  grasps  the  spear  high  up  in  order  to  lean  on  it,  gently  bending  her  head 
and  carrying  her  helmet  in  her  hand.  It  differs  also  from  the  stately  festal  Parthenos 
who  has  laid  aside  her  lance  and  shield  and  grasps  a figure  of  Nike.  The  Athena 
of  the  torso  is  the  warlike  maiden  looking  about  her  with  courage  and  resolve, 
ready  for  defence  or  for  battle. 

Finally  we  have  to  remember  that  the  original  of  the  torso  Medici  must  have 
been  of  colossal  size.  All  the  premises  adduced  point  to  the  conclusion,  bordering 
on  certainty,  that  this  original  was  the  statue  of  the  Akropolis  known  as  the 
Promachos,  an  opinion  which  Konrad  Lange  expressed  long  ago.5  The  Pheidian 
style  of  the  work,  the  warlike  conception  of  the  goddess,  the  presence  of  the 
traditional  attributes  of  the  Promachos  such  as  lance  and  shield,  the  position  of 
restrained  activity  testified  to  by  the  coins,6  the  colossal  size,  and  the  fact  that  the 
statue  stood  in  Athens,  seem  to  me,  when  taken  altogether,  absolutely  convincing. 
Final  confirmation  is  found  in  the  turn  of  the  figure,  which,  as  Lange  has  pointed 
out,7 8  is  appropriate  to  the  place  occupied  by  the  Promachos  on  the  Citadel  ; the 
figure  towered  high  above  the  Akropolis  wall  and  looked  towards  the  city,  while 
its  front  was  turned  in  the  direction  of  the  great  gates.  Like  the  Lemnia,  this 
statue  also  was  constructed  with  careful  appreciation  of  the  spot  it  was  to  occupy.9 

According  to  Pausanias,  the  Promachos  was  a work  of  Pheidias.  Neither  Pliny, 


1 At/i.  Mitth.  1880,  Taf.  5,  2 ; p.  no. 

2 Curiously  enough  K.  Lange  did  not  observe  this  confirmation  of  his  theory  ; cf.  Arch.  Ztg.  i88r,  203. 

3 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  2,  I.  II.,  p.  128;  Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  197;  Collignon, 
Pheidias , p.  15. 

4 The  omission  of  the  under  chiton  and  of  the  cloak  and  the  simpler  form  of  the  helmet  are  mere  simplifi- 
cations introduced  by  the  coin-engraver. 

8 Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  197  sqq.  ; Studniczka,  Verm.  z.  Gr.  Kunstgescli.  p.  10. 

6 The  tranquil  attitude  of  the  Promachos  is  plain  from  the  coins  which  give  the  view  of  the  whole  Citadel, 
though,  as  K.  Lange  (Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  198)  and  Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner  (Num.  Comm.  p.  129)  have 
already  shown,  these  coins  are  no  guide  to  the  actual  composition  of  the  statue. 

7 loc.  cit.  200. 

8 This  remains  true  whether  the  statue  stood  upon  the  basis  whose  existing  remains  were  formerly  supposed 
to  belong  to  it  (Loschcke,  Tod  d.  Phidias , p.  45,  is  of  contrary  opinion)  or  close  beside  it  (Lolling,  Geogr. 
Griechenl.  343,  352). 

9 The  attempt  lately  made  by  W.  Gurlitt  (Analecta  Graeciensia,  Festschrift  z.  Wiener  Philologenversai?iml. 
1 893,  p.  101  seq.)  to  obtain  certain  knowledge  of  the  ‘ Promachos’  from  Byzantine  sources  rests  on  absolutely 
untenable  suppositions. — The  zealous  Byzantine  scholar  Arethas,  writing  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century  A.D.,  made 
the  following  marginal  note  in  his  copy  of  Aristeides  opposite  the  passage  referring  to  the  ivory  and  bronze 
Athena  of  the  Akropolis — ‘ This  is  probably  the  Athena  which  stands  in  the  Forum  of  Constantine.’  Niketas 


32 


PHE1DIAS 


however,  nor  any  other  ancient  authority  mentions  it  amongst  the  works  of  this 
artist.1  A scholion  to  Aristeides  (Overbeck,  Schrift.  Quellen , 640),  on  the  other 
hand,  ascribes  it  to  one  Praxiteles,  expressly  distinguishing  it  from  the  Parthenos 
of  Pheidias.  If  we  wish  to  criticize  the  question  impartially,  we  must  not,  as  is 
usually  done,  neglect  this  last  testimony  as  worthless.  The  scholion  doubtless 
goes  back  to  some  authoritative  source  which  carefully  distinguished  the  three  most 
important  statues  of  Athena  on  the  Akropolis — viz.  the  old  Polias,  the  Parthenos, 
and  the  Promachos,  giving  in  each  instance  the  material,  the  size,  and  the  artist’s 
name.2  Now  there  are  three  other  known  instances  in  which  Pausanias  assigns  to 
Pheidias  himself  statues  ascribed  by  Pliny  and  others  to  pupils  or  assistants  of 
Pheidias.  Such  is  the  case  with  the  Nemesis  at  Rhamnus,  the  Mother  of  the  Gods 
at  Athens,  and  the  Athena  at  Elis : in  all  these  instances  Pausanias  gives,  as  every 
one  acknowledges,  the  less  trustworthy  tradition.  We  must  therefore  allow  for  the 
possibility  that  the  information  of  Pausanias,  in  the  case  of  the  Promachos  also,  may 
have  been  incorrect,  and  that  one  of  the  pupils  or  colleagues  of  Pheidias  may  have 
been  called  Praxiteles  ; further,  that  common  tradition  wrongly  assigned  the  statue 
to  Pheidias,  while  it  was  in  reality  by  another  artist,  perhaps  even  that  the  name  of 
this  artist  was  inscribed  on  the  statue,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Nemesis  of  Rhamnus. 
At  any  rate  it  seems  evident  that  the  Promachos  was  not  signed  by  Pheidias,  from 
the  passage  of  Lucian  3 in  which  it  is  related  as  something  remarkable  that  Pheidias 
thought  the  Athena  Lemnia  worthy  of  being  inscribed  with  his  name.  This  state- 
ment would  be  quite  meaningless  if  the  name  of  Pheidias  could  have  been  read  close 
at  hand  on  the  Promachos. 

The  copies  of  the  Promachos  do  not  help  us  to  a decided  answer  to  this 
question.  They,  however,  make  it  absolutely  clear  that  the  statue  bore  a very 
close  relation  to  the  authentic  works  of  Pheidias.  If  a Praxiteles  made  it,  it  is 
evident  that  he  worked  in  the  manner  of  Pheidias.  The  differences  which  mark 
off  the  Promachos  from  the  Parthenos  and  the  Lemnia  are  of  such  a kind  as  may 

(thirteenth  century)  states  that  this  Athena  was  represented  drawing  up  her  drapery  with  her  left  hand.  Gurlitt 
concludes  therefore  that  the  figure  which  Niketas  saw  was  an  archaic  one  in  the  Ionic  costume  of  the  well- 
known  ‘pre-Persian  ’ maidens  of  the  Akropolis,  and  that,  like  these,  the  left  hand  held  the  drapery.  More  than 
this,  he  gives  unlimited  credence  to  the  suggestion  of  Arethas,  and  identifies  this  figure  with  the  so-called 
‘Promachos’  of  Pheidias.  Pie  bases  this  opinion  on  the  presupposition,  which  we  have  already  shown  to  be 
false,  that  Pheidias  was  a semi-archaic  artist,  who  soon  after  480  B.c.  was  in  a position  to  be  intrusted  with  the 
most  important  commission  the  Athenians  had  in  their  gift.  Now  the  hypothesis  of  Arethas  appears  entirely 
groundless  and  without  authority.  But  even  supposing  him  to  be  right,  it  is  still  doubtful,  first,  whether  Niketas 
understood  correctly  the  motive  of  the  left  arm,  and,  secondly,  whether  Gurlitt  was  right  in  identifying  this  motive 
with  that  of  the  archaic  statues.  The  motive,  which  is  very  rare  for  Athena  (it  occurs  only  in  quite  archaic  art, 
and  apparently  never  in  statues),  contradicts  the  traditional  type  and  character  of  Athena  in  the  periods  preceding 
and  following  the  Persian  wars.  Therefore  we  must  assume  either  that  the  statue  seen  by  Niketas  was  an 
archaic  work,  and  that  Arethas  was  mistaken,  or  else  that  the  Byzantine  scribe  of  the  thirteenth  century  misunder- 
stood, not  only  the  movement  of  the  right  arm  (as  Gurlitt  admits),  but  also  that  of  the  left.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  suppose  that  the  dainty  archaic  motive  gave  rise  to  the  description  of  Niketas.  Just  as  the  right  hand  had  lost 
the  lance  it  once  grasped,  so  too  the  left  hand  may  have  lost  a shield.  If  there  was  any  drapery  hanging  over 
the  left  arm,  Niketas  might  easily  mistake  the  outstretched  left  hand,  robbed  of  its  shield,  for  a hand  holding 
drapery. —But  we  need  neither  the  confused  account  of  Niketas  nor  the  hypothesis  of  Arethas;  the  evidence 
for  the  Promachos  derived  from  the  monuments  themselves  is  infinitely  more  reliable  than  any  conclusions 
based  on  these  Byzantine  writers.  Petersen  ( Rom . Mitth.  1893,  350)  also  opposes  Gurlitt’s  hypothesis;  he 
supposes  that  the  statue  seen  by  Niketas  may  have  been  an  Alexandrine  work  in  the  style  of  the  archaistic 
Athena  published  by  him  ibid. 

1 It  is  not  likely  that  the  Cliduchus  (Plin.  xxxiv.  54)  is  identical  with  this  statue. 

2 The  Scholion  to  Demosthenes  c.  Androt.  13,  p.  597  (Ov.  S.  Q.  642,  646),  goes  back  to  the  same  source  : 
the  artists’  names  only  are  omitted. 

3 Imagines,  4. 


DATE  OF  THE  PROMACHOS 


33 


be  regarded  as  necessary  developments  of  the  style  of  Pheidias.  Only  the  tendency 
to  greater  restlessness  and  animation  and  the  lack  of  severe  simplicity  could  out- 
weigh these  considerations  and  make  it  possible  to  assign  the  figure  to  any  other 
than  to  the  creator  of  the  Parthenos. 

Before  discussing  this  question  further,  the  date  of  the  Promachos  must  be 
fixed  more  exactly.  The  work,  as  we  have  seen,  is  probably  later  and  certainly 
not  earlier  than  the  Parthenos.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  usual  assumption  that  the 
Promachos  was  a monument  of  the  Kimonian  period  must  be  false.  The  assump- 
tion is  indeed  a pure  conjecture  which  must  be  abandoned  in  face  of  more  exact 
knowledge.  If  the  torso  Medici  is  a copy  of  the  Promachos,  the  Promachos  can- 
not belong  to  the  Kimonian  epoch.  K.  Lange  rightly  drew  the  same  conclusion. 
From  the  earliest  testimony  concerning  the  Promachos,  that  of  Demosthenes  ( Fals . 
Leg.  § 272),  it  follows  with  certainty,  as  I believe,  that  the  statue,  which  he  only  calls 
the  large  bronze  Athena,  was  a votive  gift  for  the  Persian  war.  He  describes  it 
as  upiarelov  rov  7 rpo?  tou?  [Bapftupovs  TroXep-ov,  and  the  stele  with  the  curse  upon 
Arthmios,  who  had  brought  the  money  of  the  great  king,  was  set.  up  beside  the 
Athena,  according  to  Demosthenes,  precisely  because  the  Athena  was  the  monument 
of  the  Persian  war.  The  further  assertion  that  the  statue  was  erected  out  of  the 
money  contributed  by  the  Hellenes  is  obviously  mere  rhetorical  exaggeration  and 
inaccuracy.1  Now  supposing  that  the  Promachos  was  a votive  gift  for  the  Persian 
war,  there  is  still  a large  margin  within  which  to  date  it.  It  has  long  been 
acknowledged  that  the  assertion  made  by  the  late  authors,  such  as  Pausanias, 
Aristeides,  and  the  Scholiast  to  Demosthenes,  to  the  effect  that  the  statue  was  a 
votive  gift  from  Marathon,  cannot  be  relied  on.2  Probably  the  dedicatory  inscription 
described  the  statue  merely  as  a votive  gift  enro  Yiepawv  or  a7ro  A shortened 

inscription  of  this  kind  would  be  quite  in  the  fifth-century  manner,3  and  would  best 
explain  the  comprehensive  wording  of  Demosthenes. 

The  extant  copies  show  the  Promachos  to  be  later  than  the  Lemnia  and  the 
Parthenos.  The  design  for  the  latter  must  have  been  executed  about  447  B.C. ; 4 
and  as  we  need  allow  only  a short  interval  before  the  making  of  the  Promachos 
(which  is  earlier  than  the  frieze  and  the  pediments  of  the  Parthenon),  we  thus 
obtain  the  years  445 — 440  B.C.  as  the  approximate  date  of  this  work.  Now  it 
seems  to  me  far  more  likely  that  the  statue  was  erected  about  this  time  than 
during  the  administration  of  Kimon. 

The  career  of  Kimon  was  one  long  conflict  with  the  Persian  power  ; any 
monument  therefore  celebrating  the  close  of  the  national  struggle  would  have  been 
unsuitable  to  the  spirit  of  his  time,  for  it  was  his  aim  rather  to  keep  animosity 
alive.  Memorials  of  isolated  exploits,  such  as  the  gilt  Athena  and  the  bronze  palm- 
tree  dedicated  at  Delphi  after  the  battle  on  the  Eurymedon,5  were  appropriate,  but 

1 Otfried  Muller  (De  Phidiae  Vita,  i.  § 10)  suggests  that  there  is  also  an  allusion  to  the  tribute  of  the  allies. 
Preller,  Phidias,  p.  165  ( Hall . Ettcycl.  iii.  vol.  22),  suggests  the  distribution  of  the  booty  after  Plataia.  But  if 
Demosthenes,  as  Wachsmuth  ( Stadt . Athen,  i.  542)  assumes,  really  means  the  money  which  was  brought  by 
Arthmios,  his  statement  is  a purely  rhetorical  invention  ; the  general  connexion  of  the  statue  with  the  Persian 
wars  was  a well-known  fact  which  Demosthenes  takes  for  granted  and  works  up  into  a rhetorical  period. 

2 So  already  by  Otfried  Muller,  De  Pliid.  Vita,  i.  par.  9. — For  the  inscribed  fragment  C.  LA.  i.  333  which 
Kirchhoft  referred  to  the  Promachos,  cf.  Michaelis,  Ath.  Mitth.  ii.  92,  and  Wachsmuth,  Stadt.  Athen,  i.  542.  It 
probably  comes  from  a smaller  anathema  erected  in  the  lower  city  soon  after  the  battle  of  Marathon. 

3 Cf.  especially  the  inscription  of  the  golden  shield  in  the  temple  of  Delphi,  AOrivaiot  airb  MfjSox'  (cal  ©rj/Waiv 
(Aeschin.  in  Ctesiph.  116),  also  the  existing  inscriptions,  ’ABrjvaioi  a-nb  neAoiroi'i'ija-i'ax'  (Rohl,  Inscr.  Ant.  5), 
Sovpioi  airb  Tapavrtvuv  (it).  548  set].),  Meffanoi  ditb  AaKeSaijuoi'twv  (ih.  46),  etc. 

4 Cf.  U.  Kohler,  Sitzungsber.  d.  Perl.  Akad.  1889,  p.  225. 

6 Pans.  x.  15,  4. 

F 


34 


PHEIDI  AS 


if  we  are  to  trust  Demosthenes  the  Promachos  was  not  an  offering  of  this  kind,  and 
the  indirect  testimony  of  the  later  witnesses  confirms  the  account  of  Demosthenes, 
for  they  would  never  have  given  Marathon  as  the  occasion  of  the  offering  had  the 
inscription  mentioned  any  other  victory. 

It  was  not  until  the  death  of  Kimon  that  the  foreign  policy  of  Perikles  com- 
pletely asserted  itself.  Its  first  aim  was  to  bring  the  Persian  war  to  a close  so  as  to 
concentrate  every  effort  on  the  attainment  of  Athenian  supremacy  in  Greece.  Negotia- 
tions for  peace  were  accordingly  begun.  Kallias  brought  the  Athenian  proposals 
(a  record  of  which  was  probably  set  up  on  the  Akropolis)  to  Susa.  This  occurred 
about  445  B.C.  Although  it  is  unlikely  that  the  peace  so  triumphantly  celebrated  by 
the  orators  of  the  fourth  century  ever  took  the  shape  of  a formal  treaty,  yet  the 
practical  result  of  the  negotiations  was  a complete  cessation  of  hostilities  between 
Persians  and  Greeks  for  a long  period.1  It  would  naturally  be  to  the  interest  of 
the  Periklean  policy  not  to  let  the  close  of  the  Persian  war  pass  unrecorded,  and  no 
better  means  of  commemorating  it  could  be  imagined  than  a colossal  votive  gift  to 
the  patron  goddess  of  Athens  bearing  some  such  inscription  as  'AOrjvatoi  in to  M>/So>v.2 
This  votive  gift  was,  I believe,  the  Athena  Promachos. 

The  period  (445 — 440)  to  which,  for  stylistic  reasons,  we  have  assigned  the  statue 
thus  becomes  probable  on  historic  grounds  also.  Just  such  a gift  is  what  we  should 
expect  from  Perikles,  and  certainly  Pheidias  from  his  relation  to  Perikles  would  have 
some  share  in  the  work.  Perhaps  he  made  the  first  sketch,  and  handed  over  the 
execution  of  the  large  model  and  the  casting  in  bronze  to  one  of  his  assistants — 
in  a word,  to  the  Praxiteles  named  as  the  artist  by  a tradition  which  was  probably 
derived  from  the  actual  inscription  on  the  statue.  According  to  Pausanias,  the  reliefs 
on  the  shield  were  made  by  Mys  from  drawings  by  Parrhasios.  At  least  one  ancient 
inscription  must  have  testified  to  the  fact  that  these  two  artists  worked  together. 
This  inscription,  which  may  actually  have  been  on  the  shield  of  the  Promachos,  gave 
rise  at  a later  date  to  the  epigram  preserved  in  Athenaeus  (p.  782  B).3  From  what 
we  know  of  Parrhasios  independently  (the  date  of  Mys  depends  on  his)  it  is  by  no 
means  impossible  that  he  was  working  as  early  as  440  B.C.,  and  if  so  the  reliefs 
on  the  shield  would  be,  as  is  most  natural  to  suppose,  contemporary  with  the 
erection  of  the  statue.4  The  statement  of  Pausanias  as  to  the  reliefs  not  being 
by  Pheidias  affords  further  proof  that  the  statue  was  by  another  artist,  for  Pheidias 
appears  to  have  always  executed  the  reliefs  on  his  large  works  with  his  own  hand, 
and,  having  himself  been  a painter,  to  have  dispensed  with  the  aid  of  painters  or 
engravers. 

The  main  reason  for  the  widespread  belief  that  the  Promachos  belonged  to  the 
period  of  Kimon  lies  in  the  assumption  of  a ‘ Kimonian  Pheidias.’5  The  only  evidence 
however  for  the  assumption  is  that  of  Pausanias,  who  says  that  the  group  dedicated 

1 For  the  so-called  ‘Kimonian  treaty  ’ cf.  Busolt,  Gr.  Gesch.  ii.  5 1 2 sqq. ; Holm,  Gr.  Gesch.  ii.  201  sqq.\  Curtius, 
Gr.  Gesch.  6th  ed.  ii.  183,  832;  Stadtgescli.  v.  A then,  205  ; Kopp,  in  Rheinisches  Museum  f.  Philol.  vol.  48 
(r893))  P-  485-  The  date  of  the  embassy  of  Kallias  is  to  be  found  in  Suidas,  sub  voc.  KaAAi'as-  (in  the  year  of 
the  invasion  of  Pleistoanax).  Krateros  incorporated  the  decree  in  his  collection.  The  theory  of  Curtius, 
Stadtgesck.  205,  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  a fictitious  inscription  was  cut  in  stone  and  set  up  on 
the  Akropolis,  is  scarcely  tenable  ; Isokrates  at  least  in  380  B.c.  considered  the  record  genuine.  [Cf.  Grote,  v. 
I95l 

2 Cf.  supra , p.  33,  note  3. 

1 Preger,  Inscr.  Gr.  Metr.  No.  185,  dates  the  epigram  either  in  the  first  century  B.C.  or  in  the  first 
century  A.  D. 

4 Cf.  Brunn,  K.  G.  ii.  97  seq.  He  supposes  that  they  are  contemporary,  although  he  places  the  Promachos  in 
the  period  of  Kimon  (i.  165). 

5 See  especially  Loschcke,  Tod  des  Phidias , p.  45,  n.  1. 


THE  ‘ K1M0NIAN  ’ PERIOD  OF  PHEIDIAS 


35 


by  the  Athenians1  in  memory  of  Marathon  at  Delphi  was  by  Pheidias.  But  this 
statement,  given  only  by  Pausanias,  must  surely  be  wrong,  even  if  we  admit  a Kimonian 
Pheidias.  On  the  bathron  of  the  group  there  was  an  inscription  to  the  effect  that 
it  was  a Se/car?/  for  the  battle  of  Marathon  ;2  hence  the  group  must  have  been  set  up 
very  soon  after  the  battle,  at  a time  when  Pheidias,  even  if  we  suppose  him  to  have 
been  born  as  early  as  500  B.C.,  could  not  possibly  have  been  at  work.  Every  trust- 
worthy record  of  a monument  dedicated  as  a tenth  after  a victorious  battle  shows  it 
to  have  been  set  up  immediately  after  the  victory  it  commemorated.3  Only  in  cases 
where  the  votive  gift  was  a building  it  might  take  longer  to  complete  it.4  The  group 
at  Delphi  would  certainly  be  dedicated  and  carried  out  immediately  after  the  victory. 
In  the  days  of  Kimon  there  would  scarcely  be  any  occasion  for  dedicating  a Se/cuTi]  for 
Marathon,  which  had  been  thrown  into  the  background  by  other  important  events. 
Finally,  the  character  of  the  work,  a series  rather  than  a group  of  separate  figures 
standing  together  without  any  indication  of  action,  is  more  suited  to  the  older  period, 
while  the  conception  of  Miltiades  as  the  central  figure  surrounded  by  the  patron 
divinities  of  Athens,  Athena  and  Apollo,  and  the  heroes  of  Attica,  is  quite  in  the  spirit 
of  the  days  when  the  name  of  Miltiades  was  in  everybody’s  mouth.5 6  It  was  also 
characteristic  of  that  older  period  to  place  this  large  and  magnificent  bronze  group  in 
Delphi  instead  of  on  the  Akropolis.  No  doubt  Kimon  wished  to  pay  personal  honour 
to  his  father’s  memory,  but  the  customary  way  to  do  so  was  to  set  up  some  private 
avdOiyjba  or  other  work  of  art  such  as  the  historical  painting  dedicated  in  the  Stoa 
Poikile  by  Kimon’s  brother-in  law.0  The  group  sent  as  a tithe  to  the  god  of 
Delphi  by  the  Athenians  must  have  been  made  directly  after  the  battle.  When  the 
Lakedaimonians  overthrew  the  power  of  Athens  in  B.C.  404  they  set  up  in  Delphi 
without  delay  a group  designed  to  be  in  every  particular  the  counterpart  and  rival 
of  the  one  offered  by  the  hated  Athenians.  Lysander,  like  Miltiades,  formed 
the  central  figure  of  a group  of  divinities.  Strangely  enough  excess  of  pride 
brought  about  the  downfall  of  both  leaders,  and  the  greatness  of  Lysander,  like  that 


1 It  should  be  carefully  noted  that  neither  Pliny  nor  any  other  author  says  anything  of  this,  the  most 
comprehensive  work  by  Pheidias. 

2 Paus.  x.  IO,  I : To3  /3d0p<f>  . . . iiriypa.iJ.fM  flip  icr tip  airb  Se/caTjjs  top  M apaSariov  epyov  redr/rai  ras  t'lKOPas. 
Therefore  Pausanias  calls  it  a\r\0A  hoyip  SeKarri  rr\s  pd-xys  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  votive  gifts  which 
were  connected  with  the  battle  of  Marathon  not  by  an  inscription  but  only  by  a legend. 

3 For  a list  of  public  votive  offerings  connected  with  events  in  war,  cf.  Ziemann,  De  Anathematis  Gr., 
Konigsb.  Dissert.  1SS5,  p.  10  sqq. 

4 Yet  the  portico  of  the  Athenians  in  Delphi,  or  example,  was  built  immediately  after  the  naval  victory  over 
Aegina,  probably  in  B.c.  48S.  Cf.  Kohler,  Rhein.  Mies.  1891,  p.  1 seq. 

5 The  Pinax  by  Epiktetos  with  MiAndSrjs  Ka\us  must  be  older  according  to  vase  chronology  ; it  may 
refer  to  Miltiades  as  a 7rals  or  young  man,  but  not  as  a victorious  general  in  the  prime  of  life  ; in  the  same 
way  the  ‘Barbarian’  statue  published  by  Studniczka,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1891,  p.  238,  can  have  nothing  to 
do  with  Marathon.  Not  because  the  style  is  too  archaic,  for  this  objection  is  no  longer  valid  after  the 
discovery  of  the  metopes  of  the  treasury  of  the  Athenians  in  Delphi,  but  because  it  seems  impossible 
that  this  proud  mounted  Persian  should  have  served  as  a monument  of  his  country’s  defeats.  Studniczka 
compares  the  Mardonios  which  stood  in  front  of  the  Persian  porch  at  Sparta,  but  Pausanias  (iii.  11,  3) 
says  that  the  statues  of  Persians,  Mardonios  and  Artemisia  among  them,  stood  on  the  pillars  iirl  twp  klopup 
of  the  porch  ; they  are  usually,  and  correctly,  supposed  to  have  been  supporting  figures  (Curtius,  Arch.  Ztg. 
1881,  18,  20)  ; they  probably  served  as  supports  for  the  beams  of  the  upper  storey  of  the  porch,  and  were 
evidently  decorative.  Pausanias  further  implies  that  this  decoration  belonged  to  a later  period.  In  the  Persian 
rider  of  the  Akropolis  I incline  to  see  a votive  gift  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  period  of  the  Peisistratidai, 
when  these  rulers  were  trying  to  come  into  closer  connexion  with  the  Persian  king.  Against  Studniczka’s  view 
see  also  Hartwig,  Meisterschalen , p.  10,  and  Percy  Gardner,  Ashmolean  Vases,  p.  31,  No.  310. 

6 The  most  probable  hypothesis  is  that  Peisianax  erected  the  porch  out  of  his  own  private  means.  Cf. 
Wachsmuth,  Stadt.  Athen,  ii.  501.  If  he  had  only  been  ‘ Vorsitzender  der  Baukommission,’  as  Robert  assumes, 
Hermes,  xxv.  422,  the  stoa  would  never  have  been  called  by  his  name. 


36 


PHEIDIAS 


of  Miltiades,  was  already  over  a year  after  his  victory.  It  follows  that  each  monument 
must  have  been  made  directly  after  the  victory  for  which  it  was  a thank-offering.1 

It  is  not,  however,  surprising  to  find  that  in  later  times  the  Delphic  group  was 
supposed  to  be  by  Pheidias.  It  was  known  to  commemorate  Marathon,  and  Pheidias 
was  held,  at  least  by  Pausanias  and  his  informants,  to  be,  by  reason  of  the  Promachos 
in  Athens,  the  maker  of  Marathon  votive  gifts  kcit  e$jo%fv.  We  have  shown  above  how 
little  Pausanias  is  to  be  relied  upon  where  Pheidias  is  concerned.  In  three  instances  at 
least  Pausanias  has  ascribed  to  Pheidias  works  which  were  undoubtedly  by  other  artists. 
The  Promachos  is  a fourth  such  instance,  and  the  Athena  at  Pellene  is  presumably  a 
fifth,  for  the  statement  of  Pausanias  that  this  gold  and  ivory  image  was  older  than  the 
similar  images  by  Pheidias  on  the  Akropolis  and  at  Plataia  certainly  arose  2 from  the 
archaic  style  of  the  image,  and  this  simply  means  that  the  image  was  not  by  Pheidias, 
though  it  was  a gold  and  ivory  statue  of  Athena.  Thus  we  are  led  to  be  sceptical 
with  regard  to  the  Athene  of  Plataia  also  (a  marble  statue  in  gold-ivory  technique 
which  Pausanias  again  stands  alone  in  ascribing  to  Pheidias,  and  again  wrongly 
associates  with  Marathon).3  According  to  a reliable  authority  the  temple  and  the 
image  were  erected  with  the  eighty  talents  received  by  the  Plataians  after  the  battle.4 
Probably  the  building  was  begun  at  once,  and  the  ornamentation  of  the  Pronaos  with 
frescoes  by  Polygnotos  and  Onasias  would  be  left  to  the  last. 

We  know  therefore  of  no  ascertained  work  of  Pheidias  older  than  the  Lemnian 
Athena,  and  the  ‘ Kimonian  ’ period  of  Pheidias  is  a mere  myth.  As  a fact,  literary 
tradition  tells  us  only  of  the  artist’s  relation  to  Perikles,  and  nothing  of  a relation  to 
Kimon.  Not  only  did  he  first  become  famous  through  the  patronage  of  Perikles,  but 
in  an  age  where  party  opinion  ran  so  high  it  is  hardly  likely  that  Pheidias,  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  most  reliable  tradition,  was  a close  friend  and,  we  may  be  sure,  a political 
adherent  of  Perikles,  should  have  previously  belonged  to  the  party  of  Kimon. 


VII.  The  Olympian  Zeus. — Trial  and  Death  of  Pheidias. 

The  immediate  and  most  important  result  of  the  previous  investigations  is  that 
the  Zeus  of  Olympia  cannot  be  earlier  than  the  Parthenos.  Since  Pheidias  had  no 
‘Kimonian’  period  at  all,  and  since  no  certain  work  of  his  can  be  proved  to  be 
earlier  than  the  Lemnia,  neither  can  his  masterpiece,  the  Olympian  Zeus,  be  placed 
before  450  B.C.  The  Zeus  would  be  unintelligible  both  on  aesthetic  and  on  historic 
grounds  at  so  early  a period.  If  the  Eleians  intrusted  tc  an  Athenian  artist  the 
most  important  commission  that  had  ever  been  in  their  gift,  it  must  have  been 
because  that  artist  had  already  won  world-wide  renown.  Now  Pheidias  only  won  his 
fame  through  the  works  intrusted  to  him  and  to  his  colleagues  by  Perikles.  The 
artistic  achievements  of  Periklean  Athens  were,  in  fact,  the  conditions  which 
necessarily  preceded  the  call  of  Pheidias  to  Olympia.  In  the  year  456  there  was 
no  Athenian  art  great  enough  to  account  for  an  Athenian  artist  being  invited  to 

1 Fulvius  Ursinus  published  a terminal  bust  (now  lost)  inscribed  ‘Miltiades.’  The  head,  which  possibly 
does  not  belong  to  the  term,  can  scarcely  be  referred  to  the  Delphic  offering,  for  it  wears  no  helmet.  Besides,  it  is 
certainly  not  older  than  the  Parthenos.  The  beautiful  head  (Louvre,  No.  1608)  infra  PI.  IV.  which  Visconti  calls 
Miltiades  (Iconogr.  Gr.  PI.  13)  is  purely  Pheidian  in  character,  but  it  is  impossible  to  name  it  exactly,  for  it 
resembles  the  Ursinus  head  in  style  only.  A lion  is  seen  opposite  the  bull  on  the  neckpiece  of  the  helmet,  therefore 
the  bull  cannot  be  ‘ the  bull  of  Marathon  ’ as  Visconti  supposed. 

2 Klein,  in  Arch.  Epigr.  Mitt,  aits  Ocslerr.  1883,  69. 

3 Paus.  ix.  4,  1. 

4 Plut.  Aristeid.  20.  Herodotos  says  nothing  about  it  : cf.  American  Joiirn.  of  Arch.  1891,  400. 


OLYMPIAN  ZEUS  AND  THE  TRIAL  OF  PHEIDIAS 


37 


make  the  temple  statue  itself,  especially  when  we  remember  that  the  Lakedaimonians 
had  just  been  allowed  to  celebrate  their  victory  over  the  Athenians  by  erecting  an 
akroterion  over  the  completed  temple.  The  only  direct  ancient  tradition  we  have 
about  the  date  of  the  Olympian  Zeus  places  it,  as  is  well  known,  after  the  Parthenos. 
Yet  the  theory  that  the  Zeus  is  older  than  the  Parthenos,  and  that  the  date  of 
Pheidias  as  given  by  Pliny  (01.  83  = 448  B.C.)  refers  to  the  unveiling  of  the  Zeus, 
is  one  of  long  standing.  It  was  held  by  YVinckelmann,1  though  he  afterwards 
abandoned  it,2  and  Chr.  G.  Ilcyne  attempted  to  prove  it  in  detail.3  Lately  Loschcke 
revived  the  theory  with  great  acuteness;4  and  in  spite  of  the  lively  opposition  of 
other  scholars  he  has  again  quite  recently  defended  his  point  of  view.5 

We  shall  take  Loschcke’s  thesis  for  a point  of  departure : he  maintains  that 
there  were  two  ancient  and  contradictory  traditions  concerning  the  date  of  the 
Olympian  Zeus  between  which  we  have  to  choose.  This  view  is,  however,  inexact  : 
we  have  only  the  one  tradition  mentioned  above,  for  Plutarch’s  narrative,  which, 
according  to  Loschcke,  affords  ‘convincing’  although  ‘indirect’  proof  that  the  Zeus 
was  made  before  the  Parthenos,  is  no  evidence  for  this  at  all,  either  direct  or  indirect. 
There  is  not  a word  in  Plutarch  to  indicate  that  the  trial  of  Pheidias,  which  he 
relates  in  detail,  took  place  immediately  after  the  dedication  of  the  Parthenos,  so  that 
Pheidias  would  have  no  time  to  execute  any  other  commission.  On  the  contrary,  the 
whole  context,  combined  with  the  express  statement  that  the  trial  of  Aspasia  took 
place  about  the  same  time,  distinctly  shows  that  Plutarch  thought  of  the  trial  as 
taking  place  just  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Peloponnesian  war.  Thus  Plutarch’s 
narrative  does  not  contradict  the  tradition  that  the  Zeus  was  made  immediately  after 
the  completion  of  the  Parthenos.  It  is  not  about  the  date  of  the  Zeus  that  we  have 
two  traditions  ; evidence  is  only  divided  as  to  the  date  of  the  trial  and  death  of 
Pheidias.  The  narrative  of  Plutarch  places  the  prosecution  of  Pheidias,  as  we  have 
seen,  just  before  the  war,  and  makes  Pheidias  die  in  prison  at  Athens  after  his  con- 
demnation. On  the  other  hand,  the  account  preserved  in  the  Scholia  to  Aristophanes 
is  based  on  the  presumption  that  the  trial  with  all  its  consequences  occurred  directly 
after  the  dedication  of  the  Parthenos,  these  consequences  being  that  Pheidias 
escaped  from  prison,  made  the  Zeus  in  Olympia,  was  accused  a second  time  by  the 
Eleians,  and  finally  was  put  to  death.  It  is  between  these  two  traditions  that  we 
have  to  choose. 

Philochoros,  quoted  by  the  Scholiast  to  Aristophanes,6 7  after  giving  the  date  of 
the  dedication  of  the  Parthenos,  adds  some  information  about  the  fate  of  the  artist, 
but  by  using  the  expression  Xe^erai  seems  to  decline  being  responsible  for  its 
veracity.'  The  Scholiast  accordingly  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  events  which 
Philochoros  relates  concerning  Pheidias,  r a trepl  QeiBiav  7 evogeeva,  i.e.  from  the  trial 

1 In  the  first  edition  of  the  Gescliichte  d.  Kunst,  1764,  p.  332. 

2 Gescliichte  d.  Kunst , book  9,  cap.  2,  § 1 1 (Werke,  ed.  Meyer  and  Schulze,  vi.  1,  39;  ed. 
Eiselein,  v.  358). 

3 Antiquarische  Aufsdtze , i.  (1778),  p.  203  ; he  dates  the  making  of  the  Zeus  01.  81,  1 — 83. 

4 Phidias  Tod  und  die  Chronologie  des  olympischcn  Zeus , in  Hist.  Untersuch.  A.  Schaefer , gewidmet. 

5 Festschrift  z.  50  Jdhr.  Jubil.  d.  Vereins  v.  Alterthumsfr.  im  Rheinland,  1891,  p.  16  sqq.,  where 
the  latest  literature  on  the  subject  is  referred  to.  Curtius,  Griech.  Gesch.  6th  ed.  ii.  8S4,  should  be  added 
to  the  list. 

8 After  the  investigations  of  Scholl  and  von  Wilamowitz  it  may  be  considered  certain  that  the  long  and 
trustworthy  scholion  from  4>i\oxopos  to  \eyovtri  5e  rives  is  taken  from  Philochoros,  and  that  nothing  ought  to 
be  subtracted  from  it.  Cf.  also  Loschcke,  loc.  cit.  20  seq. 

7 This  may  be  concluded  from  the  word  A eyerai,  although  it  does  not  directly  prove  the  uncertainty  of  the 
tradition. 


38 


PHEIDIAS 


to  the  execution  of  the  artist  in  Elis,  took  place  in  the  same  year  as  the  dedication 
of  the  Parthenos,  to  which  they  form  the  sequel  in  the  narrative  of  Philochoros. 
From  this  passage  the  Scholiast  concludes  that  the  misfortune  of  Pheidias  happened 
seven  years  before  the  Megarian  Psephisma  and  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  and 
consequently  could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  cither.  Now  the  Scholiast  is 
evidently  in  error.  Philochoros  assigns  a date  to  the  dedication  of  the  Parthenos 
only : what  he  adds  about  Pheidias,  including  the  first  prosecution,  is  undated, 
for,  as  he  certainly  does  not  place  the  completion  of  the  Zeus  and  the  second 
prosecution  in  the  year  of  the  dedication  of  the  Parthenos,  we  need  not  assume 
that  he  wished  to  assign  that  date  to  the  first  prosecution  either.  The  fact  is  that  he 
dates  neither  prosecution,  but  merely  makes  the  ultimate  results  of  an  event  follow 
immediately  upon  it,  probably  because  he  had  nothing  else  to  date  them  by.1 
Plutarch’s  chronology  of  the  prosecution  is  confirmed  by  testimony  from  other 
quarters,  and  notably  by  Aristophanes  himself.  In  the  Pence  (605),  Hermes,  with  that 
cunning  of  the  townsman  which  can  trace  below  each  event  the  personal  motive 
hidden  from  the  stupid  peasants,  Trygaios  and  the  chorus,  alludes  to  the  calamity 
of  Pheidias,  and  to  the  fear  felt  by  Perikles  lest  he  should  be  involved  in  it,  as  being 
the  causes  of  the  Megarian  Psephisma  and  of  the  Peloponnesian  war.  The  point  of 
the  witticism  would  be  lost  had  Pheidias  died  six  years  before  the  Psephisma , at  a 
time  when  Perikles  stood  at  the  zenith  of  his  power  without  the  slightest  cause 
for  fear  of  any  sort.2 

On  the  other  hand,  as  regards  the  death  of  Pheidias,  we  have  the  version  reported 
with  reservations  by  Philochoros,  and  the  version  of  Plutarch.  It  is  now  almost 
universally  acknowledged  that  the  trial  in  Elis,  ending  with  the  execution,  is  only 
a ‘ reflection  ’ of  the  first  trial.3  It  is  due  to  rhetorical  inventiveness,  working 
upon  the  favourite  theme  of  the  world’s  ingratitude  towards  its  great  men  and 
the  ill  luck  which  befalls  them.  In  order  that  the  story  of  the  second  trial  might 
be  coherent  it  was  necessary  to  make  Pheidias  escape  from  the  prison  in  Athens  and 
flee  to  Elis.  Plutarch,  who  gained  his  information,  as  is  generally  admitted,  from 
the  best  sources,  and  from  sources  substantially  older  than  Philochoros,  ignores 
that  version.  His  statement  that  Pheidias  died  in  prison  in  Athens  is  incomparably 
more  credible  than  the  other  story,  and  admirably  fits  in  with  the  allusion  in 
Aristophanes  to  the  misfortune  of  Pheidias,  an  allusion  which  would  certainly  not 
be  consistent  with  the  escape  from  Athens  and  honourable  reception  at  Elis. 
Besides,  no  one  would  have  dared  to  invent  the  story  of  the  second  trial,  which 
must  be  at  least  as  old  as  the  third  century  B.C.,  if  the  Olympian  Zeus  had  not  been 
confessedly  a more  recent  work  than  the  Parthenos.  Thus  the  only  direct  testimony 
to  the  date  of  the  Zeus  remains  uncontrovcrted. 

We  assume,  then,  relying  solely  on  the  best-accredited  tradition,  that  Pheidias 
began  the  Zeus  immediately  after  the  Parthenos  in  438,  and  finished  it  for  the 
eighty-seventh  Olympic  festival  ; thereupon  followed  the  trial  and  death  in  prison. 
There  is  nothing  improbable  in  this  assumption.  If  Pheidias  could  complete  the 
Zeus  in  six  years,  though  he  required  nine  for  the  Parthenos,  it  was  probably 
because,  in  making  the  Zeus,  he  had  two  assistants,  Kolotes  and  Panainos.  Nor 
is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  Pheidias  was  at  Olympia  all  the  time : when  once 
the  design  and  the  models  were  made,  the  master’s  presence  was  not  always 

1 This  is  a common  proceeding  of  Philochoros  ; cf.  Bockh,  Plan  d.  Althis  d.  Philochoros  ( Abh . Bcrl. 

Alad.  1832),  p.  7. 

3 Cf.  Nissen,  Histor.  Ztsclir.  N.F.  xxvii.  1889,  406. 


3 Cf.  Loschcke,  loc.  cil.  21. 


PANTARKES 


39 


indispensable  ; in  the  great  workshop  or  ergasterion 1 numberless  workmen  would 
be  put  in  charge  of  the  several  parts  ; and  the  assistants  of  Pheidias  would  suffice 
to  supei'intend  the  work.  The  master  himself  must  have  had  ample  time  for  visiting 
his  home  in  Athens,  and  for  setting  other  tasks  on  foot.  Thus  I consider  it  not 
only  possible  but  probable  that,  even  after  the  year  438,  he  continued  to  superintend 
the  Periklean  works,  and  more  particularly  the  completion  of  the  Parthenon.2  Not 
till  this  temple  was  quite  finished  and  the  position  of  Perikles  began  to  be  insecure 
did  the  accusation  of  embezzlement,  the  particulars  of  which  we  do  not  know,3 
take  definite  shape  against  Pheidias.  His  death  in  prison  followed  upon  the  trial. 
It  was  a most  natural  resolve  on  the  part  of  the  surviving  members  of  his  family 
to  abandon  their  home  and  settle  in  Elis.  There  the  memory  of  the  great  artist 
was  held  in  reverence,  and  we  have  evidence,  at  least  in  later  times,  that  his 
descendants  were  invested  with  the  honourable  office  of  tyai&pvvraL 4 of  the  image 
of  Zeus. 

This  chronology  of  the  Zeus  fits  in  with  everything  else  we  know  about 
the  statue,  and  first  with  the  legend  of  Pantarkes,  which,  when  its  tangled  threads 
are  once  unravelled,  yields  the  following  facts.  The  story  must  of  course  have  arisen 
from  some  definite  circumstance.  This  was  the  inscription  on  the  finger  of  Zeus,5 
in  real  fifth-century  Attic  fashion,  of  the  ‘love-name’  UavTup/o] ? /caXo?.  We 
cannot  be  sure  whether  the  inscription  was  from  the  hand  of  Pheidias,  as  was  believed 
in  antiquity,  or  from  one  of  his  colleagues  or  assistants,  but  it  seems  at  least  likely 
that  the  Pantarkes  of  the  inscription  was  identical,  as  the  ancients  also  believed, 
with  the  Eleian  boy  Pantarkes  who  was  victorious  at  Olympia  in  436  B.C.,  and 
whose  statue  stood  in  the  Altis  (Paus.  vi.  10,  6).  We  know  absolutely  nothing 
about  the  artist  or  the  motive  of  this  statue.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ciceroni  of 
Olympia  were  merely  inventing  when  they  told  Pausanias  that  a likeness  to  Pan- 
tarkes, the  favourite  of  Pheidias,  was  to  be  seen  in  the  face  of  a youth  binding  a 
fillet0  about  his  head  which  adorned  the  throne  of  Zeus.  It  is  only  in  modern 
times  that  the  statue  of  an  Anadumenos,  unnamed,  which  Pheidias  made  and  set 

1 In  the  time  of  Pausanias  this  was  still  shown  ; it  may  probably  be  identified  with  the  long 
narrow  building  immediately  south  of  the  Byzantine  church.  At  Epidauros  too,  as  the  inscription  ’E (pri/x.  dpx- 
1886,  145  sqq.,  shows,  was  a carefully  built  ipyao-Tijpior  for  the  temple,  provided  with  Koviaais.  The  building  on 
the  Akropolis  south  of  the  Parthenon  may  have  been  the  workshop  of  Pheidias.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
the  Ergasterion  in  Olympia  as  Robert  does  ( Hermes , xxiii.  453). 

2 In  the  year  433 — 432  the  works  on  the  Parthenon  were  still  going  on  ; in  434  begins  the  inventory  of  the 
contents  of  the  interior,  which  must  then  have  been  complete.  Cf.  Foucart,  B.C.H.  xiii.  17$  sqq.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  Plutarch  reckons  the  Propylaia,  which  were  erected  between  437  and  432,  among  the  buildings 
under  the  superintendence  of  Pheidias. 

3 The  reasons  given  by  different  authorities  are  at  variance.  Scholl  has  shown  that  Plutarch’s  stories 
about  the  gold  used  for  the  Parthenos  and  the  portraits  on  the  shield  are  mere  inventions  ; what  Philochoros 
says  about  the  ivory,  although  it  sounds  more  probable,  is  assuredly  another  invention  ; Diodoros,  who 
relies  on  Ephoros,  only  says  iroWa  two  itptav  xpvra™ v ; it  is  quite  evident  that  the  ancients  had  not 
mastered  the  numerous  and  complicated  details  of  the  accusation  ; Ephoros  gives  the  general  drift,  and  his 
account  is  probably  correct. 

4 Paus.  v.  14,  5. 

5 Cf.  Robert  in  Hermes,  xxiii.  447  ; von  Wilamowitz,  Comment.  Gramm,  iv.  16,  1.  The  evidence  is 
reliable  and  in  itself  quite  credible  ; the  cathedrals  of  the  middle  ages  afford  examples  of  far  greater  licence. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  usually  derives  his  information  from  the  best  sources,  has  the  story,  and  it  is  quoted  as 
a well-known  fact  in  the  passage  in  Photios  (which  is  probably  derived  from  Polemon)  about  the  Nemesis  of 
Agorakritos.  Pantarkes  is  here  called  ’ApyGos,  but  that  is  probably  only  a mistake  of  the  person  who  made  the 
extract,  or  perhaps  of  the  copyist.  The  correct  word  is  probably  ’HAeio'.  There  is  no  trace  here 
of  any  ancient  controversy  about  the  native  place  of  Pantarkes,  such  as  has  been  imagined.  The 
testimony  of  Gregorius  Nazianzenus  and  of  Libanius,  who  connect  the  inscription  with  other  statues,  is 
naturally  valueless. 

6 Paus.  v.  11,3:  ioncevat  rb  e/8os  TlavTapKei  Ae'youtrtv. 


40 


PHEIDIAS 


up  in  the  Altis,  has  been  wrongly  brought  into  connexion  with  this  question.  It 
is  a separate  work,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  Pantarkes.1  The  presence  of  the 
‘love-name’  is  best  explained  by  assuming  that  the  Zeus  was  still  unfinished  in 
436,  for  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that  such  an  inscription  was  added  when  the 
statue  was  once  complete  and  dedicated  for  worship. 

More  important  than  the  Pantarkes  question  arc  the  observations  made  by 
Dorpfeld  on  the  temple  of  Zeus  and  on  the  Parthenon.2  A piece  of  very  decisive 
evidence  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  the  basis  of  the  Zeus,  as  well  as  the  pavement 
immediately  in  front  of  it,  were  made  of  black  Eleusinian  stone.  This  was  well 
calculated  to  set  off  the  surrounding  pavement  of  white  Pentelic  marble  and  the 
golden  reliefs  of  the  basis  itself.  Dorpfeld  lays  stress  on  the  circumstance  that 
Eleusinian  stone  was  employed  in  a similar  way  in  the  construction  of  the  Propylaia 
and  of  the  Erechtheion,  but  not  in  any  older  buildings,  and  notably  not  in  the  Parthenon. 
He  is  no  doubt  right  in  considering  the  square  space  in  front  of  the  Zeus  to  be  a 
conscious  imitation  of  the  similar  larger  space  in  front  of  the  Parthenos.  The  further 
observations  that  the  Zeus  and  the  Parthenos  stood  at  the  same  distance  from  the 
cella  door,  that  the  cella  at  Olympia  had  to  be  altered  before  the  image  could  be 
set  up,  and  that  the  Zeus  was  too  large  in  proportion  to  the  cella  in  which  it  stood, 
while  the  Athena  completely  harmonized  with  its  surroundings,  in  themselves  neither 
prove  nor  disprove  the  priority  of  one  or  the  other  image.  But  it  seems  most 
natural  to  suppose  that  Phcidias  imposed  upon  Olympia  the  conception  which  had 
belonged  by  right  to  the  Parthenon,  and  that  the  Eleians  submitted  to  such  an 
alteration  in  their  building  at  the  hands  of  the  celebrated  artist  of  the  Parthenos, 
because  they  were  anxious  to  possess  a statue  as  magnificent  as  the  one  in  Athens. 
In  the  year  456,  immediately  after  the  completion  of  the  temple,  the  date  to  which 
Loschcke  assigns  the  beginning  of  the  Zeus,  all  this  would  be  quite  unintelligible. 

Loschcke,  however,  thinks  it  strange  that  the  temple  should  have  been  left 
eighteen  years  without  an  image.  True,  if  temple  and  image  were  planned  at  the 
same  time,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Parthenos,  they  would  naturally  have  been  begun 
together,  but  if  this  was  not  so  there  is  nothing  to  fix  one  date  for  the  image  rather 
than  another.  We  cannot  tell  whether  it  was  originally  intended  to  set  up  a new 
cultus  image,  or  an  image  at  all,  in  the  temple,  In  the  temple  at  Delphi,  for  instance, 
which  was  built  about  the  same  time,  no  cultus  image  was  erected  so  far  as  we  know. 

Loschcke  further  lays  stress  on  the  circumstance  that  Pliny,  in  the  very  passage 
where  he  mentions  a joint  work  of  Panainos  and  Ivolotes  in  Elis  (xxxv.  54),  assigns 
Panainos  to  the  same  Olympiad  as  Pheidias  (Ol.  83).  This  date  Loschcke  concludes 
to  be  that  of  the  completion  of  the  Zeus.  To  my  mind  it  is  evident  that  Pliny,  owing 
to  the  paucity  of  chronological  material  at  his  disposal,  is  dating  Panainos  not 
independently  but  merely  from  his  brother  Pheidias.  He  was  only  in  possession  of 
the  dates  of  a few  leading  artists,  about  whom  he  grouped  lesser  artists,  according  to 
the  traditions  of  their  connexion  with  one  another.  The  whole  passage  containing 
the  date  of  Panainos  is  one  of  Pliny’s  most  characteristic  and  arbitrary  pieces  of 

1 Faus.  vi.  4,  5.  The  usual  identification  of  the  avaSovfjevos  of  Pheidias  with  the  victor  statue  of 
Pantarkes,  of  which  we  know  neither  the  artist  nor  the  motive,  must  be  rejected.  Pausanias  says — 
and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  his  word — that  the  statues  stood  in  different  parts  of  the  Altis.  The 
ava.8ouiJ.evos  was  a votive  gift  which  only  bore  the  name  of  the  artist  (cf.  Gurlitt,  Pausanias,  p.  37 % sqq.)  \ 
the  name  of  the  person  represented  was  unknown,  as  Pausanias  expressly  says  (cf.  Schubart’s  translation). 

I shall  attempt  later  to  point  to  a copy  of  this  Anadumenos.  Cf.  infra,  p.  244.  The  three  monuments — 
viz.  the  victorious  athlete,  the  Anadumenos,  and  the  figure  on  the  throne — are  all  quite  correctly  distinguished  by 
Dorpfeld,  Olympia,  Baudenkmciler,  Textbd.  ii.  21. 

2 Olympia,  Baudenkm.  Textbd.  ii.  16,  20. 


DATE  OF  THE  OLYMPIAN  ZEUS 


41 


chronology-making.1  It  seems  evident  from  a later  passage2  that  he  found  the 
date  of  Pheidias  ready  to  hand,  and  invented  that  of  Panainos. 

Loschcke  finds  confirmation  for  the  early  date  to  which  he  assigns  Panainos 
and  the  Zeus  in  Robert’s  hypothesis  that  the  paintings  of  the  Stoa  Poikile  were 
finished  about  460,  and  that  the  battle  of  Oinoe,  there  represented,  happened  about 
the  same  time.3  But  valid  objections  to  this  theory  have  been  brought  forward 
by  Judeich, 4 and  the  earlier  view,  the  evidence  for  which  has  been  carefully 
collected  by  Wachsmuth5 — viz.  that  the  picture  of  the  battle  of  Oinoe  did  not 
belong  to  the  original  cycle  of  the  Polygnotan  paintings — is  still  the  prevailing  one. 
This  picture  was  not  painted,  as  the  others  were,  on  the  large  central  wall,  the 
name  of  its  artist  is  not  mentioned,  nor  did  it  enjoy  the  same  celebrity  as  the  other 
three.  The  group  by  Hypatodoros  and  Aristogeiton  (Paus.  x.  4)  in  Delphi  must 
assuredly,  as  Robert  assumes,  have  been  an  older  work,  and  the  battle  of  Oinoe,  with 
which  Pausanias  connects  it,  is  certainly  the  same  that  formed  the  subject  of  the 
picture  in  the  Stoa  Poikile.  Whether,  however,  Pausanias  is  right  in  connecting 
the  battle  with  the  Delphic  group  is  another  question. 6 Again,  according  to  Robert’s 
hypothesis,  the  Stoa  was  erected  about  the  time  of  Kimon’s  exile,  and  was  intended 
to  celebrate  the  victory  over  the  Lakedaimonians,  who  favoured  the  Kimonian 
faction.  This  seems  highly  improbable,  seeing  that  Peisianax,  Kimon’s  brother- 
in-law,  dedicated  the  porch.  It  is  more  likely  that  the  building  was  undertaken  after 
Kimon’s  return,  i.e.  after  457,  and  that  in  true  Kimonian  spirit  it  was  designed  to 
celebrate  the  great  exploits  of  Attic  heroes  against  the  barbarian  Amazons,  Trojans, 
and  Persians.  We  are  not  even  sure  that  Panainos  was  employed  on  the  Stoa  at  all. 
It  is  true  that  Pliny  and  Pausanias  call  him  the  painter  of  the  battle  of  Marathon, 
but  in  other  authorities  the  same  picture  is  ascribed  not  only  to  Polygnotos 
(which  would  mean  little,  considering  the  fame  of  Polygnotos),  but  also  to  Mikon.7 
Even  if  Panainos  was  engaged  upon  the  Stoa  that  is  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  have  worked  about  456 — 450  in  Athens,  and  about  438 — 432  in  Olympia 
and  Elis. 

Finally,  Loschcke  calls  attention  to  some  purely  aesthetic  reasons  for  dating 
the  Zeus  in  the  older  period.  Of  the  ‘ archaic  elements  in  the  form  and  arrangement 
of  the  beard  ’ which  he  sees  in  the  copies  on  coins  I can  discover  no  trace. 
The  coins  seem  to  me  to  show  that  the  beard  was  similar  to  that  of  the  seated 
Poseidon  on  the  Parthenon  frieze.  The  line  of  the  profile  is  decidedly  against 
Loschckc’s  theory.  In  all  the  copies  it  is  very  straight,  corresponding  to  the  profiles 
seen  on  the  Parthenon  frieze,  so  that  the  Zeus  must  be  later  than  the  Lemnia,  whose 
nose,  as  we  have  seen,  forms  an  angle  with  the  forehead. 

1 Cf.  my  Essay  in  ix.  Suppl.  Bd.  of  Fleckeisen’s  Jahrb.,  ‘ Plinius  mid  seine  Quellen,’  p.  16  sqq. ; and  Robert, 

Arch.  Mdrchen,  p.  25. 

3  Plin.  36,  15  . . . pictitram  ant  statnariam,  quartan  utraque  cum  Phidia  coepit  octogensima  tertia 
olympiade  ; as  regards  painting,  this  refers  to  the  passage  on  Panainos  in  35,  54.  Cf.  Robert,  loc.  cit. 

3 Robert,  Hermes , xxv.  1890,  412. 

4 Fleckeisen' s Jahrb.  1890,  757. 

5 Stadt.  Athen,  ii.  502  sqq.  Cf.  also  Benndorf , Jahrb.  d.  Samml.  d.  Kaiserh.  xi.  1,  22. 

3 Probably  the  inscription,  as  usually  in  the  fifth  century,  gave  no  more  exact  information.  The  words  ws 
avrol  ’ Apydioi  Xiyovanv,  which  Robert  would  refer  to  an  inscription  in  contradistinction  to  the  following  ip.o\  Sokc tv, 
recall  the  exactly  analogous  ip.0'1  SokGv  and  Mara-pvtot  ainol  A eyovtn  in  the  passage  which  discusses  the  occasion 
of  the  dedication  of  the  Nike  of  Paionios,  where  the  inscription  on  the  statue  says  nothing  about  it.  In  the  case 
of  the  Argive  votive  gift  we  have  also  a mere  hypothesis,  and  a very  improbable  one,  on  the  part  of  Pausanias, 
possibly  suggested  to  him  perhaps  by  the  picture  in  the  Stoa  Poikile. 

7 Probably  as  early  as  by  Lykurgus  in  the  speech  irepl  rr/s  tepeias  (cf.  Brunn,  K.  G.  ii.  19),  then  by  Aelian, 
Arrian,  and  Sopatros. 

G 


42 


PHEIDI  AS 


In  a head  of  the  Louvre,  the  so-called  Zeus  Talleyrand,1  Loschcke  sees  a copy 
of  a work  belonging  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  and  evidently  influenced 
by  the  Pheidian  Zeus.  This  is  a daring  assertion,  depending  on  premises  which  will 
not  bear  examination.  It  is  true  that  many  works  which  were  formerly  called 
‘eclectic’  have  now  been  proved  to  be  genuine  copies  of  originals  of  the  severe 
transitional  period  of  the  fifth  century,  but  it  would  be  a strange  perversion  of  logic 
to  proceed  to  deny  in  toto  the  existence  of  an  archaic  art  containing  mixed 
elements  of  style,  and  to  insist  on  calling  every  production  which  shows  a touch 
of  the  archaic  manner  a faithful  copy  of  an  earlier  original.  The  mixed  style 
of  the  archaic  period  is  an  historical  fact  demonstrable  in  hundreds  of  monu- 
ments. The  Zeus  Talleyrand  is  a good  instance.  On  the  one  hand  the  archaic 
pointed  beard  which  follows  the  convention  of  the  sixth  century,  and  on  the 
other  the  straight  profile  and  the  modelling  of  the  eyes,  form  a mixture  of  hetero- 
geneous elements  quite  inconceivable  at  a period  when  art  was  developing  in  a 
natural  and  healthy  manner.2  The  hair  is  drawn  up  above  the  ears  into  a kind  of 
loop,  and  then  falls  again  in  a broad  band,3  according  to  a fashion  much  affected 
by  archaic  artists.4 

The  work,  which  is  imperfectly  reproduced  in  the  Talleyrand  head,  with  the 
admixture  of  later  elements,  certainly  does  not  belong  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century,  but  is  about  half  a century  earlier.  This  is  proved  by  a small  statue  in  the 
Museo  Torlonia,  a poor  but  faithful  copy  of  an  ancient  work  of  art5  representing 
Dionysos  wearing  a short  cloak,  which  falls  in  purely  archaic  folds,  and  a panther- 
skin  over  it.  The  head  is  remarkably  like  the  Talleyrand  Zeus,  except  that  the 
affected  modernizing  element  is  wanting.  The  whole  character  of  the  statue  and  some 
details,  such  as  the  roll  of  hair  and  the  position  of  the  body,  which  rests  on  the 
left  leg,  while  the  right  is  only  slightly  bent,0  make  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this 
figure  is  an  early  work  from  the  cycle  of  Hagelaidas.7  So  too  the  Zeus,  as  far  as  it 
contains  real  archaic  elements,  must  be  referred  to  an  Argive  work  of  about  500  B.C. 
It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Pheidias. 

The  aesthetic  reasons  which  Loschcke  gives  for  his  date  of  the  Zeus  are 
thus  demonstrably  false.  In  addition  to  the  straight  profile,  the  mode  of  dressing  the 
hair  also  affords  strong  evidence  for  the  later  date.  Numerous  vase-paintings  help  us  to 
an  exact  knowledge  of  the  development  of  the  fifth-century  Attic  type  of  Zeus.  In 
the  older  style,  up  to  about  450  B.C.,  Zeus  has  long  hair,  either  hanging  down  over  his 
back  or  taken  up  behind.  The  Zeus  of  Olympia,  according  to  the  coins,  had  shorter 
hair,  falling  in  curls  only  as  far  as  the  shoulders.  This  mode  of  wearing  the  hair  is 
not  found  in  the  Zeus  of  vase-paintings  till  after  450  B.C.,  when  the  free  style  had 
been  perfected;8  in  vases  of  the  ornate  style  about  430  B.C.,°  the  short  curly  hair, 

1 The  doubts  which  have  recently  been  expressed  concerning  the  genuineness  of  this  head  are  completely 
without  foundation  ; the  head  is  assuredly  ancient.  [The  head  has  lately  been  removed  from  the  public  galleries 
to  the  Magasin. — E.  S.] 

2 Cf.  Friederichs,  Bausteine,  60  (ed.  Wolters,  449)  ; Kekule  in  Arch.  Ztg.  1874,  p.  98. 

3 This  is  so  stiffly  worked  that  it  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  part  of  a diadem.  This  is  also  the  case  with 
the  hair  in  front  of  the  diadem. 

4 Numerous  instances  may  be  found  on  the  so-called  Campana  terra-cotta  reliefs  (cf.  the  Gorgoneia  and  the 
archaic  Perseus,  which  exist  in  several  variants,  good  examples  in  Bull.  Nap.  N.  S.  1,  5)- 

5 Mus.  Tori.  Taf.  124,  No.  484.  Cast  in  the  Museum  at  Carlsruhe. 

8 The  right  foot  is  wrongly  restored  as  if  drawn  back. 

7 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  125  s</q.  Studniczka  refers  to  the  statuette,  and  suggests  Kalamis  (Bom. 
Mittli.  1888,  299,  note  74). 

8 One  of  the  earliest  examples  is  a kylix  to  be  dated  about  440  B.C.  Mon.  d.  Inst.  v.  48. 

y Style  of  Meidias  and  Aristophanes  ; for  the  Io-vase  see  Overbeck,  Atlas  2.  K.  M.  7>  16,  etc. 


RELIEFS  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  ZEUS 


43 


falling  only  to  the  nape,  soon  becomes  typical  of  Zeus.  These  facts  alone  show  the 
Zeus  to  have  been  made  after  and  not  before  450  B.C. 

The  Phcidian  Parthenos  still  wears  the  long  curls,  falling  on  the  breast,  of  archaic 
art : now,  if  the  Zeus  were  earlier  than  the  Parthenos,  we  should  expect  to  find  him 
represented  with  the  same  long  thick  hair.  It  may  be  urged,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  curly  hair,  lying  close  to  the  neck,  as  shown  on  the  coin,  begins  to  appear  in  works 
of  art  just  about  the  year  450.1  This  is  quite  true,  but  it  does  not  hold  for  Zeus, 
in  whose  case  the  adoption  of  this  fashion  is  of  later  date. 

Except  the  coins  there  are  no  direct  copies  of  the  Zeus  in  existence.  But  it 
would  be  very  strange  if  no  copies  had  ever  been  made  at  least  of  separate  parts  of  a 
work  which  comprised,  besides  the  principal  figure,  so  many  reliefs  and  statuettes. 
For  instance,  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  silver-gilt  relief  from  Galaxidi,  the 
design  of  which  corresponds  exactly  with  the  central  group  of  the  gold  relief  on  the 
basis  of  the  Zeus,  as  described  by  Pausanias,  is  really  a copy  of  this  group.2  It  has 
recently  been  pointed  out  3 that  the  main  features  in  the  design  of  the  silver  relief 
(features  which  doubtless  were  to  be  seen  in  the  work  of  Pheidias),  such  as  the  goddess 
half  emerging  from  the  waves,  the  attendant  divinity  who  raises  her,  the  lifted  head  of  the 
goddess,  her  flowing  hair,  and  the  drapery  held  in  front  of  her,  are  all  borrowed  from 
an  older  work.  But  the  composition  has  been  remodelled  in  the  spirit  of  the  freest 
style,  with  a tendency  to  vigorous,  almost  passionate  movement  and  to  picturesque 
detail.  It  is  the  very  manner — even  to  the  rendering  of  the  waves — which  we  admire 
in  the  pediments  of  the  Parthenon. 

Another  of  the  designs  on  the  throne  of  Zeus — Apollo  and  Artemis  slaying  the 
Niobids — can,  I think,  be  traced  with  tolerable  certainty.  Several  reliefs  of  Roman 
date  have  preserved  to  us  in  varying  arrangement  extracts  from  a once  famous  and 
surpassingly  beautiful  representation  of  this  subject,4  which  must  be  based  upon  an  Attic 
original  of  the  Pheidian  epoch.  That  this  is  so  is  plain  from  the  dress  of  the  women,5 
from  the  schemes  of  the  drapery,6  from  the  style  of  head  and  body  in  one  well-copied 
figure,7  and  finally  from  the  character  of  the  motives.8  It  further  seems  probable  that 
the  original  was  by  Pheidias  himself,  for  the  bold  and  individual  design  of  one  of  the 

1 Cf.  the  two  Apollo  heads,  Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  Taf.  11,  12  ; Petersen,  p.  379  ; cf.  infra,  p.  49  sqq. 

2 Gazette  Arch.  1879,  PI.  19,  2 ; p.  171  sqq.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1356. 

3 By  Petersen  in  Rom.  Mitth.  1892,  p.  49  sqq. 

4 They  have  lately  been  collected  by  Plauser  ( Die  Neuattischen  Reliefs,  p.  73  sqq.  No.  104 — 107  b).  Strangely 

enough,  even  in  this  new  discussion  of  the  subject  the  most  random  and  unfounded  doubts  are  expressed  about 
the  genuineness  of  the  reliefs.  I examined  the  St.  Petersburg  relief  in  the  original  not  long  ago  ; it  is  proved  to 
be  genuine  by  the  remains  of  real  incrustration  on  the  marble.  The  relief  is  not  complete  ; it  consists  of  two 
pieces,  while  the  connecting  piece  between  the  group  of  the  two  girls  and  the  figure  hastening  to  the  right  is  a 
modern  restoration.  The  work  is  hard,  and  late  in  style.  The  disc  in  the  British  Museum  is  likewise 
absolutely  genuine,  and  is  also  partly  covered  with  incrustation  ; an  ocular  examination  of  it  is  sufficient  to  dis- 
prove the  extraordinary  arguments  against  its  genuineness  lately  adduced  by  Overbeck,  Sdchsische  Berichte,  1893, 
p.  58  seq.  5 The  peplos  girt  low  down  with  or  without  kolpos  is  characteristic. 

6 The  rendering  of  the  folds  of  the  drapery  in  the  less  agitated  maidens  is  specially  characteristic. 
With  the  cloaks  of  the  youths  and  of  the  Apollo  (the  best  replica  of  the  Apollo  is  the  fragment  Hauser  107  b) 
cf.  the  mantles  on  the  later  Parthenon  metopes,  and  those  cf  the  ‘ Kephissos  ’ and  of  the  Kekrops  in  the 
west  pediment. 

7 The  Apollo  on  the  above  fragment,  which  though  certainly  not  finely  worked  is  stylistically  faithful. 
The  nearest  parallels  to  the  head  are  found  in  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  ( e.g . north  frieze,  figs.  114,  H5>  Mich.) 
Cf.  also  the  Theseus  head  recently  brought  into  this  connexion  by  Helbig  ( Mon . Ant.  dei  Lincei,  i.  4,  1892). 

8 Hauser  has  already  pointed  out  that  the  nearest  analogies  are  afforded  by  the  monuments  in  the  style  of 
Polygnotos.  The  group  of  the  dying  boy,  whom  his  elder  sister  has  caught  in  her  arms,  is  of  peculiar  beauty  : 
he  clings  round  her  neck  and  greets  her  for  the  last  time  in  death.  The  group  belongs  to  a series  of 
Polygnotan  creations  (cf.  5°th  Berl.  Winche/mannsprogr.  p.  160  seq.),  andi  is  one  of  the  most  marvellous 
inventions  of  antiquity  in  existence.  It  was  frequently  copied  in  ancient  times,  especially  on  gems,  and  was 


44 


PHEIDIAS 


figures  corresponds  to  a figure  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthenos.  It  is  that  of  a Niobid 
who  has  fallen  backwards  over  a rock.  The  head  is  down,  the  hands  clasped  behind 
it,  while  the  legs,  bent  at  the  knees,  still  seem  clinging  to  the  rock  above  (Fig.  7).  Just 
the  same  motive  is  introduced  on  the  shield,  but  here  the  figure  is  that  of  an  Amazon 


Fig.  7. — Niobid  from  the  disc  in  the  British  Museum.  (From  a drawing.) 


dressed  in  a short  chiton.  Now  we  know  that  on  the  throne  of  Zeus,  presumably 
along  the  sides  of  the  seat,  were  represented  Artemis  and  Apollo  slaying  the  Niobids  ; 
we  may  therefore  venture  to  recognize  in  the  reliefs,  whose  conception  we  have  seen 
to  be  Pheidian,  echoes  of  those  compositions.  As  we  only  possess  fragmentary  portions 
of  the  original  design,  the  arrangement  of  the  separate  parts  remains  uncertain.  We 
may  be  sure,  however,  that  the  composition  was  a frieze,  as  the  divinities  are  aiming- 
straight  in  front  of  them.1  If  our  conclusions  be  correct,  they  afford  a fresh  proof  that 
the  Zeus  was  not  a work  of  the  severe  style,  for  the  Niobid  composition  has  a markedly 
pictorial  character,  and  its  motives  are  full  of  consummate  freedom  and  beauty. 

The  authentic  copies  of  the  reliefs  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthenos  show  the 
same  pictorial  character,  and  the  motives  are  equally  free  and  daring.  This  relief  of 
the  Aniazonomachia  is  a priceless  document  for  our  knowledge  of  Pheidias  ; it  proves 
beyond  a doubt  that  it  is  not,  as  some  have  supposed,2  vase-paintings  of  the  severe 
style  which  will  help  us  to  recover  the  style  of  Pheidias.  The  designs  of  the  shield 
recall  a distinct  class  of  vases,  distinguished  by  a free  and  animated  style,  and  an 
essentially  pictorial  quality,  which  Polygnotos  was  apparently  the  first  to  introduce.3 
On  these  vases  as  on  the  shield  the  figures  stand  on  undulating  ground  either  above 
one  another  or  side  by  side.  The  same  vigorous  action  characterizes  the  figures  on 
both — the  long  strides,  the  raising  of  the  foot  on  an  elevation,  the  fall,  the  headlong 
plunge,  the  brandishing  of  weapons,  the  interchange  of  back  and  front  view — all  these 
are  to  be  found  on  the  vases  as  on  the  shield.  We  have  here  a fixed  standpoint 

adapted  for  other  figures  in  different  designs.  Cf.  the  Attic  vase  (Millin,  v.  p.  ii.  49),  which  may  be  dated  as  early 
as  430  B.C.,  and  the  famous  Semele  mirror  (Friederichs,  Kleine  Kunst , 36). 

1 Heydemann  rightly  emphasized  this  point.  The  arrangement  on  the  disc  cannot  possibly  be  the  right  one, 
for  the  divinities  are  shooting  into  the  air.  Note  also  that  the  female  figure  which  was  intended  to  be  running  to 
the  right  has  been  placed  as  if  lying  on  the  ground.  2 Puchstein,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  1 12 — 1 1 6. 

3 Cf.  Sammlung  Sabouroff,  i.  Vasen,  Einleit.  p.  5;  also  Robert,  Die  Nekyia  des  Polygnot,  p.  42  sqq.  Winter 
(D.  Jiingeren  Attischen  Vasen,  p.  36)  rightly  saw  in  the  Aryballos  Fiorelli  from  Cuma  {Not.  dei  Vast  Cumani,  8)  the 
direct  influence  of  the  Parthenos  shield.  To  the  same  series  belong  the  ‘ Giant  ’ vase  of  Melos  ( Wiener 
Vorlegebl.  Ser.  viii.  7),  the  Aristophanes  kylix  in  Berlin  (’Efri/j..  apx-  1883,  7),  and  the  Xenophantos  vase  ( Compte 
Rendu,  1866,  4) ; also  Millin,  Vases  Feints,  i.  56,  61  ; Naples,  3251  (Heydemann).  All  these  are  purely  Attic  vases 
of  about  430  B.c. 


BASES  OF  THE  PARTHENOS  AND  OF  THE  ZEUS 


45 


whence  to  meet  all  attempts  to  push  back  the  art  of  Pheidias  to  an  antiquated  stage 
which  it  had  long  left  behind.  True,  Pheidias  could  represent  calm  and  religious 
repose  in  a masterly  manner  when  it  was  fitting  to  do  so.  The  assembled  gods  who 
assist  at  the  birth  of  Pandora  on  the  basis  of  the  Parthcnos  were  naturally  conceived 
of  in  repose,  as  is  shown  by  the  copies.1  The  reason  lies  partly  in  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  partly  in  that  of  the  place  which  the  design  was  to  occupy  ; the  ornamentation 
on  the  basis  of  a religious  image  must  have  a certain  solemnity.  Even  on  the  bases  of 
the  Parthenos  and  of  the  Zeus,  however,  Pheidias  did  not  limit  himself  to  the  represen- 
tation of  divinities  calmly  looking  on,  but  he  bounded  his  composition  on  the  one  side 
with  the  animated  figure  of  the  rising  Helios,  on  the  other  with  that  of  the  sinking  Selene. 
The  movement  of  the  Helios  on  the  Parthenos  basis  was,  as  the  existing  copy  shows,2 
of  the  fiercest,  and  the  rearing  horses  were  led  by  a figure  whose  impetuous  stride 
recalls  the  attitude  of  the  warriors  on  the  shield. 

The  cosmical  frame  thus  formed  by  the  sun  and  moon  is  a purely  pictorial  inven- 
tion,3 which,  if  it  be  due  to  Pheidias,  is  due  to  Pheidias  the  painter.  Phidian  ipsttm 
initio  pictorern  fuisse  traditur  clipeumque  Atlienis  ab  eo  pictum,  says  Pliny.  Pheidias 
began  life  as  a painter  ; the  shield  to  which  Pliny  alludes  was  presumably  that  of  the 
Parthenos,  on  the  inner  side  of  which  the  Gigantomachia  was  probably  not  in  relief, 
but  painted.4  One  vase-picture  would  seem  to  afford  a conception  of  this  painting,5 6 
which  in  its  main  lines  apparently  resembled  the  Amazonomachia.  On  the  vase, 
however,  the  vault  of  heaven  over-arches  the  whole,  while  the  rising  Helios  and  the  set- 
ting Selene  again  frame  the  composition.  There  are  a few  more  Attic  vase-paintings 
in  which  this  same  idea  has  been  made  use  of.G  To  judge  from  their  style  they  all 
belong  to  the  period  about  430,  and  are  composed  in  the  Polygnoto-Pheidian  manner. 

At  this  point  it  becomes  possible  to  answer  more  definitely  the  question  of  what 
was  the  share  of  Pheidias  in  the  execution  of  the  sculptures  of  the  Parthenon. 

The  metopes  of  the  temple  have  been  admitted  to  differ  greatly  in  style,7  and 


1 Cf.  Puchstein,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  114;  also  Hub.  Schmidt,  Diss.  Philol.  Hal.  xii.  131  sqq.  In  the 
Lenormant  statuette,  the  three  figures  in  the  centre  are  intended  to  give  an  indication  of  the  peaceful  assembly  of 
the  gods,  to  which  Helios  and  Selene  form  a kind  of  setting  (cf.  Schreiber,  Parthenos,  p.  57).  This  inter- 
pretation should  never  have  been  doubted,  and  is  now  confirmed  by  the  Pergamene  basis,  which  also  only  gives 
an  extract  from  the  original. 

2 On  the  basis  of  the  Lenormant  statuette.  3 Cf.  Samml.  Sabouroff,  Text  to  Plate  63,  p.  2. 

4 It  is  true  that  Pliny  reckons  (36,  18)  the  Gigantomachia  among  the  other  ornaments  in  relief  of  the 
Parthenos,  but  this  is  a rhetorical  passage  (cf.  Robert,  Arch.  Marclien , p.  24)  ; on  the  inside  of  the  shield  ornament 
in  relief  would  be  unsuitable,  and  finally  the  analogy  of  the  Athena  by  Kolotes  in  Elis  seems  to  point  to  painting. 
The  shield  at  Athens  which  Phidias  painted  can  hardly  be  other  than  that  of  the  Parthenos  (as  Urlichs,  Clirestoin. 
P/in.,  already  pointed  out  ; Robert,  loc.  cit.,  agrees  with  him).  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  shields  with  painted 
ornamentation  inside  only  occur  on  those  vase-paintings  which  are  nearly  analogous  to  the  pictorial  orna- 
mentation of  the  Parthenos  shield  and  to  its  style  ; cf.  for  example  the  ‘ Giant  ’ vase  of  Melos,  also  'Y.<pt)fx. 
apx . 1883,  7,  and  Overbeck,  Gall.  Her.  Bildw.  Taf.  11,  1 (where  the  Athena  seems  to  be  influenced  by  the 
Promachos). 

s Monwn.  d.  Inst.  ix.  6 ; Overbeck,  Atlas  z.  II.  Myth.  Taf.  5,  8 ; cf.  Robert,  Arch.  Ztg.  1S84,  47  ; Kuhnerdt 
in  Roscher’s  Lexihon,  i.  1659  ; M.  Mayer,  Giganten  ttnd  Titanen,  p.  268,  353  ; Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1893, 

p.  231. 

6 The  Judgment  of  Paris  is  framed  in  by  Helios  setting  and  Selene  riding  away  and  looking  back  : Wiener 
Vor/egebl.  Ser.  E.  11  ; by  Helios  alone,  on  the  hydria,  Overbeck,  Gall.  II,  1.  The  setting  Helios  on  the 
Delphic  pediment  and  on  the  vase  ( Compte  Rendu,  i860,  3)  is  probably  influenced  by  Pheidias. 

7 The  supposition  that  the  metopes  of  older  style  had  been  made  for  the  ‘ Kimonian  ’ Parthenon  (Kekule, 
Weihliche  Gewandstatue  aus  deni  Werkstatt  der  Parthenongiebelfiguren,  p.  22)  is  inadmissible,  because  the  general 
uniformity  of  the  metopes,  in  spite  of  isolated  variations,  forbids  referring  any  of  them  back  to  so  remote  a 
period.  Between  the  older  Parthenon  and  the  Parthenon  of  Perikles  a long  interval  must  have  elapsed  (see 
below).  The  discovery  of  the  treasury  of  the  Athenians  in  Delphi  can  teach  11s  what  metopes  were  like  at  the 
date  of  the  first  Parthenon.  Besides,  it  is  most  improbable  that  there  were  ever  any  finished  metopes  belonging 
to  a temple  which  never  rose  beyond  the  lowest  drums  of  the  columns. 


46 


PHEIDIAS 


clearly  show  the  influence  of  various  persons,  while  frieze  and  pediments  are  homo- 
geneous throughout,  expressing  the  spirit  and  manifesting  the  methods  of  a single 
artist.  If  we  except  a few  instances  of  a transitional  and  less  individual  style,  all  the 
metopes  exhibit  two  conflicting  tendencies.  The  one,  represented  only  by  a small 
number  of  examples,  is  to  harshness  and  angularity,  both  in  bodily  form  and  in  move- 
ment, only  a very  feeble  and  clumsy  use  being  made  of  drapery.  This  style  resembles 
that  of  the  metopes  on  the  so-called  Theseion  1 and  of  the  frieze  on  the  temple  at 
Sunium.2  It  is  the  direct  successor  of  the  style  known  to  us  from  the  ‘ Tyrant- 
slayers  ’ by  Ivritios  and  Nesiotes,3  and  shows  little  essential  advance  on  those  masters. 
The  other  tendency  is  to  greater  softness,  roundness,  and  flow  in  the  forms  of  the  body 
(the  abdomen  more  particularly  is  quite  different)  ; with  it  motion  becomes  incom- 
parably more  vigorous  and  fiery,  and  the  treatment  of  drapery  richer,  with  a certain 
leaning  to  the  pictorial.  The  rendering  of  the  woollen  stuff  is  at  the  same  stage  as 
in  the  Lemnia  and  Parthcnos,  i.e.  it  is  heavier  and  more  solid  than  in  the  frieze  and 
pediments  ; where  linen  occurs  it  is  sharply  differentiated  from  wool,  and  is  treated  as 
in  the  Promachos,  not  as  in  the  frieze  and  pediments.  Plence  the  metopes,  as  seems 
natural  from  the  history  of  the  building,  must  have  been  made  at  the  same  time  as 
the  Parthcnos.  Now  the  relief  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthcnos  proves  that  of  the  two 
manners  noted  on  the  metopes,  only  the  later  and  more  pictorial  (where  the  swing 
and  rhythm  of  the  attitudes  correspond  to  the  reliefs  of  the  shield)  can  belong  to 
Pheidias  ; compare  for  example  the  figure  rushing  forward  on  the  metope  South  VII. 
or  the  fallen  man  South  XXVIII.  with  the  analogous  figures  on  the  shield.  We  may 
conjecture  that  a small  number  of  the  earlier  metopes  were  intrusted  to  pupils  of 
Kritios,  and  that  afterwards  Pheidias,  who  had  at  first  been  more  exclusively  occupied 
with  the  Parthcnos,  turned  his  attention  to  this  department  of  the  work  also,  when  the 
other  artists  employed  on  the  metopes  tried  to  suit  their  style  to  his. 

The  frieze  and  the  pediments,  which,  except  for  some  trifling  inequalities  in 
execution,  may  be  considered  uniform,  must  from  stylistic  reasons  be  later  than  the 
metopes,  while  the  pediments  are  somewhat  later  than  the  frieze.  The  frieze 
must  certainly  have  been  finished  before  the  last  roofing  was  put  on,  and  this 
was  probably  done  before  the  image  was  set  up  in  438  B.C.4  The  figures  of  the 
pediments,  which  were  completed  in  the  round  below,  and  fixed  in  their  places 
afterwards,  must  have  been  made  after  438  B.C.5  We  have  seen  that  Pheidias  may 

1 I cannot  consider  the  Theseion  to  be  later  than  the  Parthenon  : I hold  it  to  be  just  a little  earlier.  The 
arguments  of  Julius,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  187 8,  205  sqq .,  have  not  been  refuted.  The  counter  argument  brought  forward 
by  Dbrpfeld,  At  ken.  Mitth.  1884,  336,  is  not  convincing.  If  the  frieze  on  the  cella  of  the  Parthenon  owes  its 
existence  to  an  alteration  in  the  plan  of  construction,  as  Dbrpfeld  plausibly  argues,  it  cannot  be  placed  at  the 
beginning  of  a new  development.  Dorpfelcl  could  only  urge  this  if  the  frieze  with  its  regulae  were  part  of  the 
original  design  (as  was  formerly  held),  for  only  in  that  case  would  the  Doric  regula  be  a sign  of  earlier  date. 
The  frieze  on  the  Theseion  corresponds  in  style  to  the  Parthenon  metopes  of  the  second  manner.  The  fact  that 
the  two  styles  occur  together  on  the  Parthenos  shows  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  metopes  of  the 
Theseion  were  taken  from  an  older  building. 

2 Athen.  Mitth.  1881,  233  (Lange)  ; 18S2,  396(Furtw. ) ; 1884,  338  (Fabricius)  ; cf.  1884,  336  (Dbrpfeld).  It 
is  quite  certain  that  the  style  corresponds  as  closely  to  the  metopes  of  the  Theseion  as  it  differs  essentially  from 
the  frieze  of  the  same  building.  If  the  architectural  forms  of  the  marble  temple  at  Sunium  do  not  admit  of  being 
dated  at  about  450  B.C.,  the  frieze  must  be  assigned  to  the  older  structure  of  poros  stone. 

3 In  addition  to  the  head,  abdomen  and  breast  are  specially  characteristic.  I can  detect  nothing  peculiarly 
Myronian  in  these  works  ; rather  do  they  recall  Kritios. 

4 Dbrpfeld  has  communicated  to  me  his  opinion  that  the  frieze  was  finished  about  the  same  time  as  the  cultus- 
image,  though  he  believes  that  the  question  cannot  be  decisively  settled. 

5 Two  fragments  most  probably  belonging  to  the  building  records  of  the  Parthenon  contain  the  accounts 
which  refer  to  the  purchase  of  marble  blocks  for  the  pedimental  figures  (C.I.A.  iv.  297  a.b.)  Loschcke  ( Tod des 
Phidias , p.  46)  pointed  out  that,  as  in  one  fragment  mention  is  also  made  of  a purchase  of  wood,  the  account  is 
probably  to  be  dated  after  the  making  of  the  roof,  i.e.  after  438  B.C. 


THE  PARTHENON  SCULPTURES 


47 


have  retained  the  superintendence  of  the  building  after  438.  There  is  not  the  smallest 
reason  for  disputing  the  tradition  which  makes  him  overseer  of  all  the  works  or 
for  denying  his  authorship  of  its  principal  sculptural  decorations,  i.e.  of  the  frieze 
and  the  pediments.  The  aesthetic  quality  of  the  work  is  all  in  favour  of  the  tradition  : 
the  fiery  attitudes  of  some  of  the  pedimental  figures,  such  as  the  striding  Poseidon 
and  the  Hermes,  can  only  be  matched  on  the  shield  and  basis  of  the  Parthenos  ; 
the  pictorial  touches,  which  in  the  pediments  find  expression  in  the  rocky  seats 
and  the  waves  of  Okeanos,  are  paralleled  by  the  wavy  ground  lines  on  the  shield 
relief,  while  the  rising  Helios  and  the  sinking  Night  of  the  east  pediment  have 
been  shown  to  be  genuine  Pheidian  conceptions,  which  could  be  introduced  in  a 
shortened  form  because  the  artist  had  expressed  them  fully  elsewhere.1  In  the 
rendering  of  form,  and  especially  of  drapery,  the  frieze  and  the  pediments  are  the 
immediate  outgrowth  and  development  of  the  metopes  of  freer  style.  Compare 
for  example  the  mantle  of  the  recumbent  Greek  on  metope  South  XXVIII.  with 
that  of  the  ‘ Theseus’  or  the  ' Kephissos’  of  the  pediments.  The  style  is  absolutely 
the  same,  though  equally  characteristic  in  both,  the  only  difference  being  that  the 
folds  in  front  of  the  pedimental  figures — not  at  the  back,  where  the  correspondence 
with  the  metopes  is  absolute — are  cut  more  deeply  in  order  to  make  the  drapery 
look  lighter.  To  ascribe  the  metopes  to  the  artist  and  deny  him  the  frieze  and  the 
pediments  means  a refusal  to  acknowledge  that  he  was  capable  of  development 
at  all.  Now  the  existence  of  the  Parthenos  and  its  relation  to  the  Lemnia  afford 
irrefragable  proof  that  Pheidias  was  by  no  means  an  artist  who  remained  wedded 
to  a fixed  manner,  but  one  who  developed  decidedly  and  rapidly.  The  Parthenos 
differs  from  the  Lemnia,  as  we  saw,  in  the  treatment  of  drapery,  the  artist  showing 
a tendency  to  abandon  simple  characterization  of  woollen  stuff  and  to  give  more 
attention  to  the  effective  arrangement  of  folds.  Besides  this,  the  stuff  appears 
lighter  and  thinner,  and  clings  more  closely  to  some  parts  of  the  body,  which  thus 
become  more  prominent  in  the  design.  The  difference  in  drapery  between  the  frieze 
and  the  pediments  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Parthenos  and  the  metopes  on  the  other, 
only  represents  a further  stage  in  the  same  perfectly  normal  progress.  To  make  his 
development  close  with  the  Parthenos  and  the  metopes  would  be  most  unjustifiable. 
On  the  contrary,  as  the  frieze  and  pediments  were  made  in  the  lifetime  of  Pheidias, 
and  as  tradition  tells  us  that  he  superintended  the  works  on  the  Parthenon,  we  have 
every  reason  for  ascribing  the  growth  of  style — not  to  the  school — but  to  the  master 
himself.  Only  in  certain  details  of  slight  importance  the  assistants  may  quite 
possibly  have  gone  beyond  the  master’s  orders,  but  in  all  essentials  the  design  is 
emphatically  his  very  own.  That  powerful  and  dominant  personality  which 
undoubtedly  governed  the  frieze  and  the  pediments  can,  on  the  evidence  of  style 
and  of  tradition,2  be  none  other  than  that  of  Pheidias  himself.  His  name  is  and 
remains  closely  associated  with  that  flower  of  Attic  art  which  continued  unrivalled 
for  all  time. 

The  decorative  sculptures  on  the  colossal  images  of  Athena  Parthenos  and  of 

1 The  pediment,  owing  to  lack  of  space,  gives  a shortened  form  of  the  composition  on  the  relief : it  contains 
no  new  elements,  except  that  the  rider  Selene  is  replaced  by  Nyx  in  a chariot  as  filling  more  suitably  the  angle  of 
the  pediment. 

2 Kekule  ( IVeibliche  Gewandstatue)  has  recently  attempted  to  assign  the  pediments  to  Alkamenes  and 
Agorakritos.  As  the  basis  on  which  his  arguments  rest  is  false,  his  whole  theory  falls  to  the  ground.  The 
supposed  differences  between  the  pediments  do  not  exist  ; Kekule  mistakes  differences  in  the  characterization  of 
stuff  for  differences  of  style  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  the  ‘Iris’);  the  supposed  statues  of  Alkamenes  which  Winter 
believed  he  could  point  to,  and  which  Kekule  uses  as  the  basis  of  his  contention,  have  no  connexion  whatsoever  with 
Alkamenes  (see  infra,  p.  84,  note  8),  and,  even  if  they  had,  the  pediments  would  none  the  more  be  by  Alkamenes. 


43 


PH  El  DIAS 


Zeus — the  Amazonomachia,  the  boundary  motive  of  Helios  and  Selene,  the  Niobids, 
the  Anadyomene,  and  the  Gigantomachia — show  how  intimate  was  the  artist’s 
connexion  with  painting,  and  thus  confirm  the  testimony  of  Pliny,  who  says  that 
Phcidias  began  life  as  a painter,  and  only  turned  to  sculpture  later  on.  His  brother 
Panainos  remained  a painter.  Pheidias  himself  carried  out  the  painting  on  the  inner 
surface  of  the  shield  of  the  Parthcnos,  while  the  corresponding  decoration  of  the 
Zeus  was  handed  over  to  his  brother. 

So  far  our  conclusion  is  that  the  ascertained  works  of  Pheidias  are  all  comprised 
within  a period  of  about  twenty  years.  Pheidias,  it  is  true,  may  have  worked  before 
this  period,  but  the  analysis  of  the  Lemnia  and  its  forerunners  has  shown,  and  will 
show  us  further  still,  that  it  is  improbable  his  artistic  career  began  further  back 
than  some  ten  years  before  the  Lemnia,  so  that  either  he  did  not  live  to  be  old,  or 
he  was  no  longer  young  when  he  turned  from  painting  to  sculpture.  Of  the  two 
hypotheses,  the  former  seems  to  me  the  more  likely  ; in  that  case  Pheidias  would  scarcely 
have  lived  to  the  age  of  sixty.  This  theory  seems,  however,  to  be  contradicted  by  the 
tradition  reported  by  Plutarch,  according  to  which  Pheidias  introduced  on  the  shield 
of  the  Parthenos  his  own  portrait  as  a bakbheaded  old  man.  On  the  copy  of  the 
shield  in  the  British  Museum  this  figure  is  clearly  to  be  seen.  It  represents  an  elderly 
man  with  hollow  cheeks,  short  full  beard,  and  bald  head,  save  for  some  scanty  locks 
at  the  back.1  The  man  is  brandishing  a weapon  with  full  force  against  an  Amazon.2 
A man  of  about  forty  (the  age  of  Pheidias  at  the  time  of  the  Parthenos,  according  to 
our  calculation)  could  very  well,  at  least  in  our  modern  life,  look  like  this  figure,  but 
in  the  art  of  the  fifth  century  such  a figure  would  be  meant  to  represent  a more 
advanced  age.  The  short-cut  beard  and  hollow  cheeks  especially  are  part  of  the 
conventional  type  of  the  ‘ old  man.’ 

To  the  question,  then,  whether  Pheidias  was  an  old  man  when  he  created  the 
Parthenos  I should  incline  to  answer  distinctly  in  the  negative,  for  this  so-called 
portrait  is  probably  as  apocryphal  as  are  the  numerous  portraits  of  artists,  their 
friends  and  relations,  which  ciceroni  identify  in  famous  pictures  of  Christian  art. 
The  legend  given  by  Plutarch,  that  the  portraits  of  the  artist  and  of  Perikles  were 
the  occasion  of  the  prosecution  of  Pheidias,  is  a foolish  and  meaningless  invention, 
as  Scholl 3 and  A.  S.  Murray4  have  already  shown.  The  information  given  by 
Plutarch  about  the  portrait  of  Perikles,  and  confirmed  by  the  copy,  shows  what  sort 
of  likenesses  we  have  to  expect  ; the  arm  of  the  figure  was,  it  seems,  raised  and  held 
in  front  of  the  face,  so  as  to  cover  it.  This  is  said  to  have  shown  the  cunning  of  the 
artist,  who  wished  to  conceal  the  likeness.  But  it  simply  means  that  there  was  no 
likeness  at  all.  The  whole  story  probably  arose  from  the  rather  individual  characteriza- 
tion of  the  old  man  : he  was  supposed  to  be  Pheidias,  hence  the  warrior  beside  him 
must  be  Perikles,  even  if  his  face  was  almost  covered.  There  is  much  evidence  for  be- 
lieving that  the  ‘ old  man  type  ’ was  a general  favourite  in  the  cycle  of  Polygnotos.  In 
combination  with  youthful  figures  he  served  to  vary  the  design,  and  in  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Amazonomachia  this  active  greybeard  was  appropriate  as  showing  how 
all  Athenians  young  and  old  united  in  patriotic  resistance  to  the  invading  enemy. 

1 For  the  whole  shield  see  Collignon,  Hist,  de  la  Sculpture  Grecque , p.  545- 

2 A stone  according  to  Plutarch  ; the  same  in  the  Lenormant  statuette  (Michaelis,  Taf.  15,  1 b. ) ; a battle- 
axe  on  the  shield  in  the  British  Museum  ; the  figure  of  the  Capitoline  fragment  on  which  Schreiber  (Parthenos, 
p.  600  (58)  sqq. ) recognizes  the  ‘ Pheidias  ’ is  a copy  of  some  other  figure  of  the  original. 

3 Sit  2.  Bcr.  d.  Miinchener  A had.  Phil.  Hist.  Cl.  1881,  1. 

4 Encycl.  Brit.,  ‘rhidias.’  [Mr.  Murray,  however,  supposes  the  Strangford  shield  to  be  wholly  a later  work, 
‘ produced  subsequently  to  illustrate  some  current  story  on  which  that  description  (i.e.  of  the  portraits)  was 
founded.’  The  same  view,  only  very  slightly  modified,  in  Hist,  of  Gr.  Sc.  vol.  ii.  p.  121, — E.  S.] 


OTHER  WORKS  RELATED  TO  THE  LEMNIA 


49 


VIII.  Other  Works  related  to  the  Lemnia. — The  Master  of  Pheidias.- — Early  Pheidian 
Works. — The  A nakreon. — Pheidian  Eros  and  Aphrodite. 

Hitherto  we  have  discussed  only  those  works  which  are  in  close  relation  to  the 
Lemnia,  either  through  the  forms  of  the  body  or  the  treatment  of  the  drapery.  We 
must  now  take  the  head  as  starting-point  for  a further  inquiry. 

There  exist  a whole  series  of  heads  really  related,  though  in  varying  degree,  to 
that  of  the  Lemnian  Athena.  A complete  list  of  these  is  not  given,  as  it  would  be 
useless  without  illustrations.  It  must  suffice  to  select  a few  of  the  more  important. 
These  fall  into  two  groups,  according  as  they  are  earlier  or  later  than  the  Lemnia. 

Foremost  in  the  first  group  must  be  placed  the  Apollo  recently  found  in  the 
Tiber,  and  now  in  the  Museo  delle  Terme  in  Rome  (Fig.  8 ; head  alone,  Fig.  9).1  It  is 
only  a mediocre  copy,  of  poor  workmanship,  yet  it  preserves  enough  of  the  original  to 
produce  a great  effect  ; magnificence  combined  with  gentle  beauty  is  its  pervading 
quality.2 3  This  general  characteristic,  as  well  as  the  unusual  pose  of  the  head, 
which  is  energetically  turned  to  the  side,  recalls  the  Lemnian  Athena.  The  head, 
however,  exhibits  a somewhat  older  style,  the  hair  coming  from  the  crown  of  the 
head  and  lying  flatter  than  in  the  Lemnia.  A still  closer  relation  between  the  two 
works  makes  itself  felt  in  the  spiritual  expression  of  the  refined  face  and  in  the  peculiar 
beauty  of  the  closed  mouth.  By  way  of  contrast  we  may  compare  the  head  of  the 
Capitoline  Apollo,  which  has  been  grouped  with  the  Apollo  of  the  Terme?  There  is 
a superficial  similarity  between  the  two,  and  they  belong  to  the  same  period,  but  those 
finer  elements  of  form  on  which  the  spiritual  expression  depends  differ  totally.4  Very 
different  also  is  the  Cassel  Apollo  {infra,  Fig.  80),  which  reproduces  another  type  of 
the  same  period.  The  only  points  it  has  in  common  with  the  Terme  Apollo  are  the 
forehead  broadening  at  the  base,  and  the  large  open  eyes  ; but  these  are  features 
individual  to  the  god  represented.  We  shall  have  to  return  to  this  point  later  on. 

Thus  there  is  every  probability  that  the  Apollo  is  an  earlier  work  by  the 
artist  of  the  Lemnia.5  The  attribution  is  of  special  weight,  as  the  Apollo,  in  spite 
of  the  individual  character  which  distinguishes  it  from  contemporary  -works,  is  still 
clearly  limited  by  certain  traditions  of  the  older  school,  while  the  Lemnia  at  once 
takes  its  place  as  the  creation  of  a finished  and  independent  artist. 

Now  the  school  traditions  alluded  to  are  those  of  the  Argive  Hagelaidas.6  In  the 
first  place  the  position  is  typical  of  that  school,  i.e.  the  body  is  supported  on  the  left  leg, 

1 Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  p.  302;  377  sqq.  (Petersen),  Taf.  x. — xii. 

2 Petersen  is  right  in  speaking  of  the  ‘ indescrivihile  espressione  di  dolcezza  ’ in  the  head. 

3 loc.  cit.  Taf.  xi.,  xii.,  on  the  left  ; Overbeck,  Atlas  Kunstmyth.  Taf.  20,  22. 

4 1 cannot  agree  with  Petersen  in  ascribing  both  statues  to  the  same  artist.  The  Capitoline  head  is  much 
more  nearly  related  to  the  charioteer  in  the  Pal.  Conservatori.  It  would  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  the 
Capitoline  Apollo  must  be  by  the  same  artist  as  the  Cassel  Apollo.  In  reality  the  original  of  the  Capitoline 
figure  was  probably  by  an  artist  of  the  second  rank,  who  was  influenced  by  the  artist  of  the  Cassel  type  in  the 
body  of  his  statue  and  in  the  head  by  the  artist  of  the  Terme  Apollo  {infra,  p.  197).  It  is  impossible  to 

identify  all  the  Apollo  types  of  the  period  with  the  few  which  are  handed  down  by  tradition,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  existing  number  is  far  larger  than  the  number  reported  in  literature. 

6 The  first  suggestion  is  due  to  Petersen,  loc.  cit.  After  what  has  been  said  on  p.  35  it  is  of  course 
impossible  to  identify  this  statue,  as  Petersen  does,  with  the  Apollo  of  the  Delphic  group  ; nor  is  it  likely  that 
the  Terme  statue  reproduces  the  Parnopios.  We  must  always  remember  that  only  a very  small  fraction  of  the 
actual  works,  even  by  the  greatest  artists,  is  recorded  by  tradition. 

6 See  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.li^o,  p.  134  sqq.  The  theories  recently  propounded  by  Kalkmann,  53yd 
Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  (1893),  according  to  which  the  figure  by  Stephanos  goes  back  to  an  otiginal  by 
Pythagoras,  seem  to  me  completely  to  miss  the  mark. 

H 


Fig.  8. — Statue  of  Apollo  in  Museo  delle  Terme  (Rome). 


APOLLO  OF  THE  TERME 


51 


the  right  leg  is  slightly  bent  at  ease,  but  the  foot  is  flat  on  the  ground,  the  right  arm  hangs 
somewhat  quietly  down,  the  left  is  in  action,  the  head  is  turned  to  the  left  and  inclined. 
The  figure  has  a broad  firm  pose,  owing  to  the  leg  at  ease  being  set  well  to  the  side. 


Fig.  9. — Head  of  Apollo  in  Museo  delle  Terme. 


This  trait  recalls  the  Apollo  of  Mantua,1  a work  which  I have  already  named  as 
one  of  the  forerunners  of  the  Lemnia  (p.  25).  The  Terme  Apollo  forms  the  link 
between  them.  Other  marks  of  the  school  are  the  excessive  breadth  of  the  shoulders 
in  proportion  to  the  hips,  the  hard  contour  of  the  right  shoulder,  which  as  usual  is 

1 loc.  cit.  p.  139  si/i/. 


52  PH  El  DIAS 

slightly  raised,  and  the  closeness  of  the  right  upper  arm  to  the  body.  The  motive 
of  the  left  arm  too  (which  was  raised  very  high,  and  no  doubt  originally  rested  on  a 
laurel  stem1)  already  occurred  in  works  from  the  school  of  Hagelaidas.  Such  are  an 
Apollo,  preserved  in  two  small  marble  copies,  unfortunately  only  torsos;2  a statue 
turned  into  an  Antinous  by  a copyist  of  the  time  of  Hadrian  ;3  and  finally  an  admir- 
able bronze  statuette  of  Apollo  in  the  Louvre.4  All  these  works,  which  are  connected 

more  or  less  closely  with  the 
school  of  I lagelaidas,  show  the 
same  motive  as  our  Apollo. 
The  latter,  however,  differs 
from  them  all  in  the  more 
decided  and  energetic  bend 
of  the  head  to  the  left,  by 
which  it  gains  in  power  and 
majesty ; 5 * and  in  the  markedly 
individual  modelling  of  the 
spare  but  powerful  body. 

In  spite  of  these  differ- 
ences the  connexion  of  this 
work  with  the  school  of  Hage- 
laidas is  evident  even  in  the 
formation  of  the  head.  The 
Mantua  Apollo  is  clearly  its 
immediate  forerunner,  as  may 
be  seen  more  especially  from 
the  peculiar  mouth.0  Thus 
the  surpassing  beauty  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Lemnia  is  not  an  isolated  phenomenon,  but  the  artist  derived  it  from 
that  older  master  to  whom  we  owe  the  Mantua  Apollo.  The  resemblance  must 
impress  any  one  who  compares  the  two  statues. 

In  a former  essay  I tried  to  prove  that  the  artist  of  the  Mantua  Apollo,  while 
belonging  to  the  school  of  Hagelaidas,  held  his  own  definite  position  within  that 
school.7  His  type  of  head  is  not  the  conventional  type  of  the  school,  the  mouth 
especially  being  formed  in  a manner  entirely  his  own.  Now  this  artist,  as  the  facts 
we  have  just  investigated  reveal,  must  have  been  the  teacher  of  the  artist  who  made 
the  ferine  Apollo — in  a word,  of  the  young  Pheidias. 

1 A very  favourite  motive  on  vases  of  the  fifth  century  ; similarly  on  coins  and  a gem,  cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon, 
i-  457- 

2 (a)  Louvre,  Gal.  Mollien  (No.  2955)  ; (b)  torso  in  the  Museo  Chiaramonti,  199. 

3 5°th  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  147  ; Bull.  Commun.  di  Roma , 1886,  7. 

4 Longperier,  Notice  des  Bronzes  Antiques , No.  439,  1 Achille.  ’ This  is  not  a Greek  original  bronze,  probably 
not  even  an  exact  copy,  but  a free  modification  of  the  Augustan  period.  The  head  recalls  the  Zeus  Talleyrand, 
the  hair  being  dressed  in  the  same  affected  archaistic  manner  ; the  side  curls  are  rendered  as  in  the  Munich 
Artemis  of  Gabii  (cf.  infra , Appendix)  ; the  body  however  is  an  example  of  the  type  under  discussion. 

5 Another  difference  consists  in  the  strong  growth  of  curled  hair  on  the  pubes,  a detail  traditionally  absent 
from  the  other  works  of  the  Hagelaidas  school.  The  front  of  the  figure  is  much  injured  by  the  action  of  the  water, 
but  the  back  is  in  good  preservation. 

11  The  different  copies,  the  bronze  of  Pompeii,  the  marble  statues  of  Mantua  and  Paris  agree  in  their  render- 
ing of  this  mouth,  which  means  that  they  correspond  to  the  original.  On  the  relation  of  the  copies  to  one  another, 
see  my  article  Berl.  Phil.  Wochenschrift,  1894,  p.  81  sqq.  Fig.  10  gives  the  upper  part  of  the  bronze  Pompeian 
statue  from  a photograph  of  the  original. 

7 50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  140  sqq. 


THE  MASTER  OF  PH  El  DIAS 


53 


A bronze  from  the  Akropolis  1 proves  that  this  artist  worked  in  Athens,  or  at 
least  for  Athens.  The  head  appears  to  be  earlier  than  the  Apollo  ; it  is  rather  harder, 
and  it  should  probably  be  dated  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  year  480  B.C.2 
By  the  help  of  tradition  we  can  proceed  a step  further,  and  name  this  artist.  It  is 
Hegias  whom  we  know  as  the  teacher  of  Pheidias.  An  inscription  on  the  Akropolis 
shows  that  he  was  working  there  shortly  before  the  Persian  sack.3  And  from  the 
monuments  we  have  learned  that,  though  a pupil  of  Idagelaidas,  he  followed  out  his 
own  artistic  instincts,  and  gave  to  the  head  of  his  statues  a new  spiritual  expression. 
The  beauty  he  strove  to  embody  was  softer,  fuller,  and  more  sensuous  than  the  ideal 
of  the  Peloponnesians,  but  it  was  left  to  his  pupil  to  develop  and  idealize  it. 

Of  the  two  ancient  traditions  concerning  the  masters  of  Pheidias,  the  one, 
giving  the  name  of  Hegias,  comes  down  to  us  on  the  excellent  authority  of  the  learned 
Dion  Chrysostom,4  who  was  specially  interested  in  Pheidias.  In  the  same  passage 
he  shows  himself  to  be  well  informed  about  the  master  of  Polygnotos  and  his 
brother.  It  is  certain,  then,  in  the  opinion  of  the  best  ancient  scholars,  that  Pheidias 
was  the  pupil  of  Hegias.  The  other  account,  in  which  the  better  known  and 
more  famous  Hagelaidas  was  named,5  was  however  not  entirely  false,  for  the  art  of 
Hegias  was  derived  from  that  of  Hagelaidas,  and  the  youthful  works  of  Pheidias 
showed  on  the  face  of  them  their  close  connexion  with  the  types  of  the  school  of 
Hagelaidas.  The  monuments  have  taught  us  that  the  two  traditions  are  really  in 
accordance. 

Hitherto  we  had  not  been  able  to  form  an  exact  notion  of  the  style  of  Hegias, 
because  the  ancients  only  characterize  him  in  the  most  general  way  along  with  Kallon, 
Kritios,  and  Nesiotes  as  a representative  of  the  older  and  harder  manner.  We  now 
perceive  that  there  are  essential  though  subtle  differences  between  the  work  of  Hegias 
and  that  of  Kritios.  How  radically  Kritios  differs  from  the  school  of  Hagelaidas  I 
have  attempted  to  show  elsewhere.6  I may  here  cite  a work  which  on  account  of  the 
subject — it  represents  Apollo — is  appropriate  for  comparison,  and  which  is  in  my  view 
an  excellent  sample  of  the  work  of  Kritios.  The  statue  stands  in  the  Pitti  Palace, 
and  though  scarcely  known  is  of  capital  interest  for  the  history  of  art.7  The 
slender  form  of  the  god  is  supported  on  the  right  leg,  the  left  being  somewhat 
advanced  ; the  small  head  (which  is  unbroken)  is  turned  slightly  to  the  left,  but  not 
bent ; the  eyes  look  straight  out,  as  in  the  statue  of  a boy  from  the  Akropolis,  which  I 
consider  to  be  likewise  an  early  work  by  Kritios.8  The  formation  of  head  is  the  same 
as  in  the  boy,  the  hair  too  is  similarly  arranged  in  a roll  subdivided  into  different 
masses  ; but  the  Apollo  wears  in  addition  long  curls  falling  over  the  neck,  after  the 
fashion  of  the  Tcrvie  Apollo.  The  lifelike  and  slightly  rounded  modelling  of  the 
body  marks  an  advance  on  the  Hagelaidas  school,  but  seems  severe  and  restrained  in 

1 Mnsles  d’Athenes,  PI.  16  ; for  the  discovery  cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  xii.  372. 

2 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr . \^o  seq.,  148. 

3 AzAt'iov  opx ■ 1889,  p.  37  ; C.  I.  A.  iv.  373,  259.  The  stone  is  blackened  by  fire,  and  therefore  Lolling 
dates  it  before  the  year  4S0. 

4 De  Horn,  et  Socr.  i.  O.  Midler’s  emendation  of  the  HnOY  of  the  MSS.  into  HTIOT  is  scarcely  an  emenda- 
tion at  all,  whereas  E.  Gardner’s  suggested  reading  'H7eXa5ou  ( Classical  Review,  1894,  p.  70)  strays  far  from  the 
traditional  reading. 

5 Only  in  the  Scholia  to  Aristophanes  (Frogs,  504),  whence  Tzetzes  and  Suidas  derive  their  information.  The 
statement  in  the  same  passage  about  the  date  of  Hagelaidas  had  of  course  no  connexion  originally  with  the 
assertion  that  Pheidias  was  his  pupil;  for  whoever  placed  Hagelaidas  in  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian  War 
could  not  possibly  suppose  him  to  be  the  teacher  of  Pheidias. 

6 50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  1 50  seq. 

7 Diitschke,  ii.  4;  Overbeck,  Apollon,\>.  170,  5. 

8 50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  150  ; cf.  pp.  7,  19. 


Fig.  ii. — Terminal  bust  in  the  Capitoline  Museum. 


PHEIDIAS  AND  KRITIOS 


55 


comparison  with  the  so-called  Omphalos  Apollo,  and  corresponds  to  what  we  know  of 
the  manner  of  Kritios.  The  left  arm  is  raised  high,1  just  as  it  is  in  that  Argive  work 
which  inspired  the  statue  attributed  to  the  young  Pheidias,  who  must  also  have 
known  the  Apollo  assigned  to  Kritios,  since  their  statues  are  connected  by  the  arrange- 
ment of  locks  on  the  nape  of  the  neck. 

The  Apollo  of  the  ferine  must  be  dated  about  460 — 455  B.C.,  some  five  or  ten 
years  earlier  than  the  Lemnia.  We  possess  a whole  series  of  works  belonging  to  the 
same  period,  and  showing  in  all  essentials  the  same  tendency,  but  only  a very  few  of 
these  can  be  said  to  have  a connexion  with  the  Lemnia  direct  and  personal  enough 
to  warrant  us  in  ascribing  them  to  Pheidias  himself. 

The  strongly  plastic  treatment  of  the  hair  in  long  lifelike  curly  waves,  as  we  find 
it  in  the  Apollo  of  the  ferine  and,  still  more  developed,  in  the  Lemnia,  is  common  to 
several  heads  of  the  time  between  460  and  450,  whose  type  of  face  however  makes  it 
impossible  to  attribute  them  to  Pheidias.  Such  are  a head  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo,2 
probably  representing  a horned  river  god,  and  a terminal  bust  of  similar  style  in  the 
Capitoline  Museum  (Fig.  11).3  In  these  examples  curls  fall  on  the  back  of  the  neck 
as  they  do  in  the  Apollo  of  the  ferine , but  the  whole  expression,  and  especially  the 
harder  rendering  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  shows  more  analogy  to  the  Capitoline 
Apollo  4 than  to  the  Tenne  Apollo  or  to  the  Lemnian  Athena,  and  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  we  have  here  two  works  by  another  artist.  This  was  probably  that  contemporary 
of  the  young  Pheidias  whom  we  shall  shortly  learn  to  recognize  as  the  creator  of  the 
Athena  Albani : the  two  heads  just  mentioned  certainly  appear  more  closely  related 
to  this  Athena  than  to  any  other  work.  The  forehead,  the  way  in  which  the  front 
hair  is  parted  over  it,  the  eyes,  the  mouth,  and  the  furrow  between  nose  and  mouth 
correspond  in  a remarkable  manner. 

A bearded  head  in  the  Palazzo  Barberini  (Fig.  12) 5 seems  to  answer  more  nearly 
to  what  we  should  expect  of  the  young  Pheidias.  The  hair,  in  short  curly  rings,  is 
treated  in  a thoroughly  plastic  and  individual  fashion.  It  is  parted  along  the  top  of 
the  head  as  in  the  Lemnia.  The  line  of  profile  and  the  shape  of  the  skull  also 
correspond  approximately  to  the  Lemnia,  but  the  head  is  somewhat  earlier.  In 
many  particulars  it  represents  a preparatory  stage  to  an  Asklepios  in  Dresden,6 
which  belongs  to  the  circle  of  Pheidias,  and  is  some  twenty  years  later,  and,  like  it, 
may  have  been  intended  for  an  Asklepios  or  some  hero  of  kindred  nature.  The 
expression  of  the  face  is  calm  and  dignified,  the  forehead — still  very  low — is  smooth 
and  unruffled. 

The  head  of  a youth  from  the  Jacobsen  collection  (No.  1095^)  is  of  great 
interest  because  of  its  relation  to  the  Lemnia.  It  is  a small  head,  turned  ener- 
getically to  the  right,  with  short  full  locks,  into  which  a fillet  presses.  Its  connexion 
with  the  old  Argive  type,  as  we  know  it  from  the  athlete  by  Stephanos,  is  still 
marked. 

1 The  cloak  falling  from  the  upper  arm  and  the  lyre  below  are  additions  of  the  copyist.  In  the  original  the 
left  hand  probably  grasped  a laurel  staff,  and  the  lowered  right  hand  held  a bow. 

2 Bonne r Studien , Taf.  8,  9 ; Winter,  loc.  cit.,  interprets  the  head  as  Iacchos  ; Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  p.  153  ; 
(Sauer,  according  to  whom  the  head  represents  Aktaion)  ; Helbig,  9.  The  head  is  wrongly  set  ; it  was  intended 
to  be  upright  as  in  the  cast  in  the  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts  at  Paris. 

3 Ahis.  Capit.  i.  83.  In  the  room  of  the  Philosophers,  No.  85. 

4 Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  Taf.  11,  12,  to  the  left. 

5 Matz-Duhn,  Zerstr.  Bildw.  No.  1741-  Cf.  Graf,  Aus  der  Anomia,  p.  63,  note;  phot,  in  German  Inst,  at 
Rome. 

6 Treu  has  lately  identified  a replica  of  this  work  in  Olympia  (cf.  Arch.  Anz.  1890,  107  ; 1892,  66).  His 
interpretation  and  restoration  of  it  as  a Zeus  seem  to  me  at  present  quite  unproved. 


Fig.  12. — Head  in  Palazzo  Barberini,  Rome. 


TELEPHANES 


57 


Attempts  have  lately  been  made  to  refer  the  Hermes  Ludovisi 1 to  the  earlier  period 
of  Pheidias.  It  is  certainly  the  work  of  a very  great  artist  of  the  period  in  question, 
but  its  relation  to  the  Lemnia  is  not  close  enough  to  warrant  us  in  assigning  it 
to  Pheidias.  The  difference  is  plain,  even  in  the  fashion  of  the  fillet,  which  lies 
flat  on  the  hair,  without  pressing  into  it  as  in  the  Lemnia.  The  formation  of  the 
lower  part  of  the  face,  the  rather  thin  lips,  and  the  picturesque  boldness  in  the 
rendering  of  the  cloak  which  is  slipping  off,2  and  even  the  bodily  forms,  are  not  in 
harmony  with  the  style  of  Pheidias.  There  is  an  admirable  replica  of  this  head 
in  the  collection  at  Broadlands 3 (Fig.  13).  The  style  is  here  rather  freer  than  in 
the  Ludovisi  example,  the  copyist  having  made  plentiful  use  of  the  drill,  and  put 
more  modelling  into  the  cheeks,  but  the  winsome  grace  and  the  sweet  roguish 
expression  of  the  head  must  be  due  to  the  original.  Ionic  art  is  the  only  possible 
source  of  such  a work.4  On  a Phokaean  electrum  coin,5  an  e/cry  Thw/cat'?  (PI.  VI.  19), 
occurs  a head  of  Hermes  very  similar  to  that  of  the  statue,  wearing  the  same  petasos 
and  short  curls,  with  the  same  profile,  and  evidently  belonging  to  the  same  period. 
It  seems  admissible  to  bring  this  Hermes  type  into  connexion  with  Telephanes  of 
Phokis,  who  apparently  lived  about  this  time.6  The  further  analogy  between  our 
Hermes  and  the  head  of  a youth  on  a Thessalian  relief7  strengthens  this  theory, 
since  Telephanes  is  known  to  have  worked  for  Thessaly. 

There  is  a female  type  which  may  very  well  have  belonged  to  Pheidias’s  early 
period,  and  be  regarded  as  a forerunner  to  the  Lemnia.  Its  best  replica  is  the 
beautiful  head  in  the  Hermitage  (profile  in  Fig.  15).8  The  hair  is  dressed  with  the 
simplicity  so  much  affected  by  the  wider  circle  of  Hagelaidas,  and  which  the  Lemnia 
retains,  though  in  a richer  form,  i.e.  it  is  waved  back  from  the  front  and  rolled  up 
behind.  The  parting  has  not  yet  appeared  ; the  lines  of  hair  come  straight  from  the 
crown  of  the  head.  The  way  the  hair  frames  the  forehead,  the  line  of  the  profile,  the 
mouth  with  its  full  lips — all  seem  to  me  so  many  analogies  to  the  Lemnia,  and  indica- 
tions that  Pheidias  is  the  artist.  There  is  a variant  of  this  head  with  less  severe 
expression  and  more  open  mouth  in  the  Coll.  Barracco  (Fig.  14).9  Like  the  one  in  St. 
Petersburg,  this  head  is  distinguished  by  unusual  dignity  and  beauty,  and  may  also  be 
referred  to  Pheidias.  A small  and  slightly  worked  head  of  the  same  type  is  to  be 
seen  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo,  on  an  Artemis  of  more  recent  style,  to  which  it  does  not 

1 Cf.  B.  Graf  in  Aus  der  Anomia , p.  69.  In  the  Museo  Boncompagni  (Helbig,  Museums,  871). 

2 In  the  replica  by  Kleomenes,  the  so-called  ‘ Germanicus  ’ of  the  Louvre,  the  folds  of  the  mantle  are 
modified  in  Praxitelean  style. 

3 Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculpt,  in  Gr.  Brit.  p.  219,  Broadlands  9.  The  edge  of  the  petasos  is  wrongly  restored. 
The  nose  is  uninjured  and  antique.  The  head  is  placed  incorrectly  in  an  upright  position  on  a modern  term. 
The  length  of  the  face  m.  o'i63  (the  Ludovisi  copy  o-i65).  To  the  list  of  replicas  of  the  head  should  be  added 
Uffizi  Diitschcke  13  = Arndt-Brunckmann,  Einzelverkauf  83,  84. 

4 50th  Berl.  Winckelviannsprogr.  p.  152,  where  I suggested  Pythagoras  of  Samos  as  the  artist. 

s The  replica  in  the  British  Museum  is  illustrated  in  the  Catal.  Ionia,  PI.  IV.  23.  The  Berlin  example 
(PI.  VI.  19)  is  more  severe  in  style  and  more  like  the  statue. 

6 The  author  who  makes  him  work  for  Xerxes  and  Darius  ( apud  Plin.  xxxiv.  68)  is  of  course  thinking  of  Darius 
II.,  but  forgets  that  this  monarch  was  separated  from  Xerxes  by  an  interval  of  forty-two  years  ; he  probably  only 
meant  that  Telephanes  worked  for  the  Persian  kings  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.  The  fact  that  Telephanes  is  grouped 
with  Polyldeitos,  Myron,  and  Pythagoras  shows  that  he  must  have  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  century. 
Cf.  Julius  Lange,  Fremstilling  af  Menneskeskikkelsen,  p.  133  seq. 

7 Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  188S,  PI.  VI. 

8 Guedeonow,  Sculp.  Ant.  No.  32,  ‘athlete.’  Length  of  face  0'i56;  length  of  head  c.  0'22.  The  propor- 
tions correspond  to  those  of  the  Lemnia.  Mouth  to  inner  angle  of  the  eye  (64  mm.)  = the  length  of  the  nose  up 
to  the  arch  of  the  eyebrows  = the  lower  part  of  the  face  = twice  the  length  of  one  eye  ; width  of  the  mouth  (42  mm. ) 
= height  of  the  forehead. 

s Coll.  Barracco,  PI.  36,  ‘tete  d’ephebe,’  and  in  the  text  ‘tete  d’athlete  ’ ! The  eyes  are  hollow.  A 
small  replica  of  the  Barracco  head  in  terra-cotta  from  a high  relief  is  now  in  Dresden  (Coll.  Dressel). 

I 


Fig.  13.— Terminal  bust  in  the  collection  at  Broadlands.  (From  a photograph.) 


Bruckmnnn  in  Munich.) 


6o 


PHEIDIAS 


belong.1  True,  there  is  something  of  the  nature  of  Artemis  in  the  pure,  straightforward, 
maidenly,  Amazon-like  expression  of  the  heads,  so  the  mistake  is  not  surprising.2 

A beautiful  female  head  in  the  Villa  Albani  (No.  63)  is  also  possibly  a replica  of 
an  older  Pheidian  work.3  It  may  be  placed  about  midway  between  the  well-known 
Madrid  head,4  which  is  so  closely  allied  to  the  Olympia  metopes,  and  the  Lemnia. 
The  hair  is  arranged  as  in  the  Madrid  head.  It  is  parted  down  the  middle  as  in  the 
Lemnia,  but  is  treated  in  a much  simpler  manner.  The  low  forehead  with  its  delicate 
modelling,  the  mouth,  and  even  the  shape  of  the  ears  recall  the  Lemnia. 

We  can  judge  with  greater  certainty  when  we  come  to  works  contemporary 
with  or  onlyr  slightly  later  than  the  Lemnia. 

In  connexion  with  the  Albani  head  just  mentioned,  it  is  fitting  to  discuss  an 
Athena  tyrpe  which  is  certainly  of  Pheidian  origin.  It  survives  in  three  terms,  two  of 
which  are  from  Herculaneum — the  first  of  these  is  given  in  Fig.  16 — the  third  is  in  the 
Capitol.5  This  beautiful  head  shows  analogies  to  the  Albani  female  head  mentioned 
above  and  to  the  Lemnia.  The  style  is  that  of  the  Lemnia,  but  the  expression,  less 
serious  and  solemn  than  kindly,  as  well  as  the  carriage  of  the  head,  brings  it  nearer  to 
the  Albani  type.  The  goddess  wears  her  helmet  pressed  low  down  on  the  forehead,  as 
does  the  Parthenos  at  a later  date.  A gorgoneion  on  an  aegis-like  background  of  scales 
forms  the  symbolic  ornament  of  the  helmet.  Curls  fall  down  at  the  side  as  in  the 
Parthenos.  Although  this  conception  of  the  goddess  differs  not  only  in  external 
particulars  but  in  expression  from  the  Lemnia,  y"et  the  inner  analogy"  between  them 
is  in  my  view  undeniable  ; the  mouth  and  the  lower  part  of  the  face  are  peculiarly 
characteristic.  On  the  other  hand,  an  Athena  head  in  the  Munich  Glyptothek6 
shows  how  style  can  differ  in  spite  of  striking  external  similarity.  It  is  a replica  of 
a work  belonging  to  the  same  period,  but  not  by  the  same  artist. 

To  the  period  of  the  Parthenos  itself  belongs  a superb  work  of  Pheidias  which 
survives,  as  I believe,  in  one  complete  copy"  and  in  various  reproductions  of  the  head. 
I mean  the  Anakrcon  standing  in  an  attitude  of  rapt  enthusiasm  and  declaiming  his 
poems  to  his  own  accompaniment  on  the  lyre  (Fig.  17).7  This  work  is  now  universally 

1 Helbig,  Museums,  No.  20  ; Clarac,  571,  1220.  Arndt  informs  me  that  the  head  is  put  on  with  a straight 
junction  surface,  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  statue,  and  that  the  whole  back  from  the  girdle  upwards  is  new.  The 
type  of  this  torso,  a fourth-century  modification  of  the  Parthenos,  was  also  used  to  represent  Isis  (cf.  Beschr.  d. 
Antiken  Skulpt.  in  Berlin , p.  529,  No.  60  d).  The  quiver  band  shows  that  the  statue  was  originally  intended  to 
represent  Artemis.  The  quiver  itself  is  omitted. 

- It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  St.  Petersburg  and  Barracco  heads,  like  that  of  the  Lemnia,  were  formerly 
supposed  to  be  male. 

3 Length  of  face  o'  1 75.  I find  no  mention  of  this  admirable  work  in  literature.  (Cf.  Berl.  Winckelmanns- 

progr.  p.  130.)  4 J.  H.  S.  1884,  Taf.  45. 

5 (1)  Naples,  Inv.  6322,  Comparetti  de  Petra,  Villa  Ercol.  Tav.  xx.  1 ; Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1893,  Taf.  3,  pp.  1 74 » 
177  ; (2)  Naples,  Inv.  62S2,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1893,  p.  176  ; (3)  in  the  Philosophers’  Room  of  the  Capitol,  No.  54  : 
Mns.  Capitol,  i.  56,  Jahrb.,  lor.  cit.  p.  17 6.  In  all  three  instances  the  term  is  antique.  In  (2)  and  (3)  the  breast 
is  covered  with  drapery  which  can  hardly  be  copied  from  the  original.  The  turn  of  the  head  varies,  as  is  often 
the  case  in  term  copies  (see  term  in  Index).  Wolters  (Jahrb.,  loc.  cit.)  attempts  to  trace  back  this  type  to 
Kephisodotos,  the  artist  of  the  Eirene  ; but  the  forms  of  brow,  hair,  eyes,  and  mouth  show  by  their  style  that  the 
head  belongs  to  the  fifth  cental  y and  to  the  Pheidian  epoch. 

6 Placed  on  a statue  (No.  86)  which  does  not  belong  to  it. 

7 The  statue,  formerly  in  Villa  Borghese,  and  now  in  Copenhagen  (Ny  Carlsberg),  is  published  Arch.  Ztg. 
18S4,  Taf.  11  ; cf.  Eriederichs- Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1305.  I know  three  replicas  of  the  head:  (a)  in  Rome, 
Helbig,  599  ; (b)  in  the  Palazzo  Riccardi  in  Florence,  to  the  left  of  the  entrance  upstairs  (Diitschke,  ii.  200)  - 
the  head  is  wrongly  set;  (c)  in  Berlin,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  Taf.  3.  Kekule’s  notion,  ibid.  p.  119  seq.,  that 
the  Berlin  head  is  a fifth-century  original,  is  absolutely  false  : it  is  an  ordinary  Roman  copy,  in  a bad  state  of 
preservation,  and  much  restored.  The  head  in  the  Louvre,  1946,  seems  to  be  a fourth,  very  poor  replica.  A 
fifth,  badly  preserved,  in  Glienecke,  is  mentioned  by  Kekule,  p.  120. 


Fig.  16. — Terminal  bust  of  Athena  from  Herculaneum  (Naples). 


62 


PHEIDIAS 


admitted  to  be  of  fifth-century  date.1  Any  one  who  comes  fresh  from  the  study  of 
the  Lemnia  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  by  a wonderful  likeness  between  the  two  heads 
which  can  only  be  explained  by  identity  of  authorship.  Although  rather  short,  the 
hair  is  parted  as  in  the  Lemnia,  and  the  fillet  presses  deep  into  it,  while  the  refined 
forehead  with  its  flat  and  restrained  modelling,  the  eyebrows,  and  the  thin  eyelids  are 
so  many  points  of  definite  resemblance  ; even  the  ear  has  the  shape  characteristic  of 
the  ear  of  the  Lemnia.  The  head,  although  conceived  in  an  attitude  of  vigorous  move- 
ment, yet  produces  as  a whole  that  wonderful  effect  of  combined  dignity,  beauty,  and 
repose  which  was  peculiar  to  Pheidias.  Moreover,  the  only  complete  parallel  to  the 
drapery  occurs  on  the  Parthenon  metopes  of  free  style,  which  are  to  be  referred  to 
Pheidias.  Nowhere  else  do  we  find  the  peculiar  clinging  of  the  mantle  to  the  nude 
forms,  the  broken  folds,  or  the  same  true  characterization  of  the  soft  yet  heavy 
material.2  This  fixes  the  date  of  the  statue  at  about  445-440.  The  frieze  and  the 
pediments  show  a definite  advance  in  style.  The  way  the  short  cloak  hangs  round 
the  shoulders  echoes  archaic  tradition  and  recalls  the  Oinomaos  of  Olympia.  But 
the  influence  of  the  circle  of  Ilagelaidas  has  long  ceased  to  dominate  the  artist. 
The  bodily  forms  are  nervous  and  fresh  as  in  the  metopes  of  free  style.  The  feet 
are  placed  on  the  ground  in  the  old  scheme,  but  the  upper  part  of  the  body  is 
turned,  giving  to  the  whole  composition  novelty,  vigour,  and  exquisite  freedom  of 
rhythm.3 

The  Pheidian  statue  of  Anakreon  was  doubtless  identical  with  the  one  which 
stood  on  the  Akropolis,  and  whose  attitude,  according  to  Pausanias,  was  ‘suggestive 
of  a man  singing  in  his  cups.’4  In  ascribing  the  animated  and  inspired  turn  of  the 
head  to  a liberal  use  of  wine,  Pausanias  was  making  no  unnatural  supposition  in  the 
case  of  a man  who  was  the  poet  par  excellence  of  wine  and  intoxication,  and  who 
himself  appears  intoxicated  in  a work  of  art  which,  whether  real  or  fictitious,  is  alluded 
to  in  epigrams.5  Beside  the  statue  of  Anakreon,  Pausanias  saw  that  of  Xanthippos, 
the  father  of  Perikles  and  friend  of  Anakreon.  It  has  long  been  rightly  supposed  that 
both  statues  were  set  up  by  Perikles.6  Of  course  they  were  not  public  monuments, 
but  purely  private  dedicatory  gifts,  meant  to  express  the  filial  affection  of  Perikles 
for  his  father  and  his  reverence  for  his  father’s  distinguished  friend.  If  the  name  of 
Perikles  came  first  in  the  dedicatory  inscription,  it  is  easy  to  understand  why 
Pausanias  begins  to  speak  of  Perikles  just  in  the  very  passage  where  he  names  these 
works,  although  the  statue  of  Perikles  himself,  as  he  says,  stood  at  some  distance. 

The  artist  was  probably  not  named.  If  we  remember  Lucian’s  statement  about 
the  inscription  of  the  Lemnia,  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  the  name  of  Pheidias  was 
to  be  seen  on  another  statue  of  the  Akropolis  outside  the  Parthenon.  Considering 
the  artist’s  close  relation  to  Perikles,  his  authorship  would  at  that  time  appear 
so  much  a matter  of  course  that  his  signature  could  be  left  out.  The  statue 


1 Cf.  Winter,  Jahrh.  d.  Inst.  1890,  159  ; Helbig,  toe.  cit.  ; and  especially  Kekule,  toe.  cit. 

9 Cf.  the  metopes  Michaelis,  South  ii. , viii.,  xxviii.  Cf.  Kekule,  p.  121. 

3 The  pubes  with  its  thickly  curled  hair  resembles  that  of  the  Terme  Apollo. 

4 [Tr.  Harrison  and  Verrall,  Myth,  and  Mon.  of  Anc.  Athens , p.  471.] 

6 Wolters  (Arch.  Ztg.  1884,  150)  rightly  doubts  the  existence  of  the  work  ; in  any  case  there  are  no 
grounds  for  identifying  it  with  the  statue  of  the  Akropolis.  Cf.  also  Kekule,  p.  119,  note  4. 

6 Brunn  in  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1859,  183.  Brunn  is  wrong,  however,  in  connecting  the  portrait  of  Perikles, 
which  according  to  Pausanias  stood  in  quite  a different  spot,  with  these  two  statues,  and  in  ascribing  them  to 
Kresilas.  The  Perikles  was  a private  anathema  of  Kresilas.  Kekule,  p.  125,  follows  Brunn,  and,  arguing  from  a 
supposed  stylistic  connexion  between  the  Anakreon  and  the  Perikles,  suggests  the  Anakreon  was  also  by  Kresilas. 
There  is,  however,  no  stylistic  connexion,  except  in  so  far  as  both  works  belong  to  the  same  epoch.  Sal.  Reinach, 
Chron.  d' Orient,  No.  xxvi.  p.  11,  comes  nearer  the  truth  in  suggesting  that  the  Anakreon  might  be  by  Kolotes. 


THE  ANAKREON 


63 


1C 


was  set  up,  as  is  proved  by  the  style,  during  the  period  when  Perikles  was  most 
powerful,  and  could  without  opposition  place  upon  the  Akropolis,  tv  im^aveo-Tdrcp 
to7to,  images  of  his  father  and  of  Anakreon,  the  friend  of  tyrants. 

The  influence  exercised  on  more  recent  art  by  this  work  of  Phedias  is  shown 


Fig.  17. — The  ‘Anakreon  Borghese’  (Ny  Carlsberg  Glyptothek,  Copenhagen). 


in  a beautiful  head  in  the  Vatican,1  a copy  of  a work  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.  : it 
represents  a poet  with  inspired  upturned  look,  and  is  visibly  a development,  even  to 
the  form  of  the  beard,  of  the  Anakreon  of  Pheidias. 

A magnificent  bearded  head  in  the  Museo  Torlonia  (Fig.  18)  is  closely  analogous 
to  the  Anakreon,  and  must  likewise  be  by  Pheidias.  The  strikingly  noble  and 
elevated  beauty  of  this  head  must  dwell  in  the  memory  of  all  who  have  seen  it. 

1 Helbig,  Museums , No.  287.  The  old  interpretation  of  the  head  as  Zeno,  and  Helbig’s  suggestion  of  Aratos, 
are  equally  unproved  and  inappropriate. 


64 


PHEIDIAS 


For  my  own  part,  since  I first  beheld  it  in  1877,  it  has  kept  its  place  in  my  remem- 
brance as  the  gem  of  the  collection.1  The  delicate  forehead  swells  almost  imper- 
ceptibly in  the  middle,  and  is  low,  just  like  that  of  the  Lemnia,  to  which  the 
eyebrows  and  thin  eyelids  also  correspond  closely.  The  hair  is  again  bound  by 

a diadem,  broader  in  front,  narrower  behind,  with  short 
curls  escaping  from  it.  The  general  similarity  to  the 
Anakreon  in  hair  and  beard  is  striking,  although  many 
of  the  details  are  quite  different.  In  turning  to  identify 
the  head,  we  note  that  two  small  wings  are  attached — 
not  to  the  head  itself — but  to  the  diadem.  Analogies 
are  found  in  contemporary  vases  of  the  period  ranging 
from  460 — 450,  where  daemonic  attributes  appear  fast- 
ened to  the  diadem.  Athena,  for  example,  wears  a 
diadem  on  which  Pegasoi  are  seated,2  and  Thetis  a 
diadem  adorned  with  small  wings,  to  indicate  her  trans- 
formations.3 More  important  still  is  the  painting  on 
a white  lekythos  of  the  British  Museum  ; the  black 
outline  drawing  shows  a bearded  man  with  wings  on 
his  head  rising  from  a wide  fillet ; he  rushes  forward  to 
meet  an  advancing  warrior,  and  strikes  him  on  the  arm. 
Without  attempting  to  interpret  this  vase-painting, 
I wish  to  point  out  that  the  art  of  the  time  ap- 
parently had  not  the  courage  to  effect  an  organic 
connexion  between  the  wings  and  the  head.  Further, 
in  the  Torlonia  head  the  wings  are  purposely  kept  small, 
in  order  not  to  break  the  fine  outline  of  the  skull. 
The  winged  diadem  apparently  has  much  the  same  signification  as  the  wings 
attached  actually  to  the  head  in  later  times:  one  might  imagine  the  head  to  be 
that  of  a bearded  Hermes,  were  it  not  that  the  type  of  features  is  absolutely 
foreign  to  that  god.  The  similarity  to  the  Anakreon  brings  us  seemingly  nearer 
the  truth  : may  we  not  have  here  a head  of  Mousaios,  the  old  god-inspired  poet,  who, 
according  to  Attic  legend,  had  received  the  gift  of  flight — and  therefore,  we  may 
suppose,  the  gift  of  wings — from  Boreas  ? 1 

To  the  same  group  belongs  a beautiful  bearded  head  in  the  Museo  Chiaramonti 
(Fig.  19), 5 which  expresses  marvellous  elevation  and  distinction.  It  is  nearly  related 
to  the  last-mentioned  heads,  and  also  to  the  Lemnia,  and  must  be  referred,  if  not  to 
Pheidias  himself,  as  I believe,  at  least  to  a master  of  his  school  and  of  the  period 
about  450 — 440.  The  treatment  of  the  wavy  hair  on  the  upper  part  of  the  head,  the 
roll  of  hair  on  the  neck,  and  the  small  curls  escaping  from  it  recall  the  Lemnia. 
Entirely  Pheidian,  too,  are  the  finely  modelled  forehead,  the  thin  eyelids,  the  spring 
of  the  nose,  the  arrangement  of  the  beard,  and  the  shape  of  the  ear.0  It  is  difficult 
to  form  any  conjecture  as  to  whom  the  head  represents.  The  tuft  of  short 
hair  rising  in  front  above  the  twisted  fillet  is  quite  unique,  and  the  tangled  hair 

1 No.  48  in  the  Catalogue  of  1876  ; now  No.  50.  Benndorf,  Rom.  Mitth.  i.  113,  notices  the  analogy  to  the 
Anakreon. 

2 Elite  Clramogr.  i.  29,  and  Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  49. 

3 Mon.  d.  Inst.  i.  37. 

4 Onomakritos,  apud  Paus.  i.  22,  7. 

5 Mus.  Chiaram.  Tav.  33  ; Helbig,  71.  The  tip  of  the  nose  is  restored. 

6 The  end  of  the  nose  has  been  distorted  by  the  restorer,  and  too  much  curved. 


Fig.  18.  — Head  with  winged  fillet,  Museo 
Torlonia,  Rome.  (From  a drawing.) 


K 


Fig.  19. — Head  in  the  Museo  Chiaramonti  (Vatican). 


66 


PH  El  DIAS 


about  the  chin  is  also  probably  a characteristic  mark.  The  current  interpretation  as 
Dionysos  is  absolutely  groundless.  It  very  probably  represents  a hero,  but,  until  we 
know  which  hero,  the  finer  intentions  of  the  artist  must  remain  a mystery. 

Two  female  types  still  have  to  be  mentioned  in  the  present  connexion  : one  is 
the  head  of  a young  goddess,1  with  a wide  fillet  wound  three  times  round  it  and  a 
bunch  of  hair  behind  tied  up  in  a crtuaco ?.  The  type  is  of  the  same  period  as  the 
Lemnia,  and  probably  owes  its  existence  to  Pheidias. 

Closely  allied  to  this  head,  although  stylistically  somewhat  later,  is  the 
1 Sappho,’  of  which  so  many  copies  have  survived  (P  igs.  20  b,  21  b ).2  Plere  too  we 
have  the  wide  fillet  wound  several  times  round  the  head,  although  arranged  in  a slightly 
different  manner.  The  forehead  is  freer  and  higher,  the  curls  only  escape  freely 
above  the  ears.  This  is  quite  in  the  manner  of  the  Parthenos,3  of  which  the  head 
appears  to  be  contemporary.  The  rich  plastic  waving  locks  on  the  upper  part  of 
the  head  are  genuinely  Pheidian.  In  front  of  and  behind  the  ears  (which  again  are 
shaped  like  those  of  the  Lemnia)  a few  wisps  stray  from  the  mass  of  hair.  The 
mouth  is  a little  open,  giving  a glimpse  of  the  teeth. 4 The  head  is  slightly  turned  to 
the  side,  the  expression  fresh  and  gracious.5  The  long  narrow  form  of  the  eyes  is 
characteristic.  There  can  be  no  question  of  a portrait,6  but  the  rich  fillet,  the  expres- 
sion of  the  face,  and  the  form  of  the  eyes  are  more  appropriate  to  Aphrodite  than  to 
any  other  goddess.  This  interpretation,  already  suggested  by  Helbig,7  is  strongly 
confirmed  by  a wonderful  statuette  from  Syria,  now  in  Paris  in  the  Collection  de 
Clcrq.  This  work  represents  a nude  Aphrodite  binding  a wide  fillet  round  her 
head.  Except  for  some  few  omissions  and  unimportant  alterations,  the  head  of  the 
Aphrodite  is  of  the  type  under  discussion.  Although  the  body  imitates  forms  of  the 
fifth  century  B.C.,  the  whole  conception  is  merely  an  invention  of  Hellenistic  times, 
uniting  the  head-type  of  Pheidias  with  the  motive  of  the  Diadumenos  of  Polykleitos.8 

1 Four  replicas  of  the  head  are  known  to  me  : (a)  with  inserted  glass  eyes  in  the  Museum  of  the  Capitol, 
‘ Philosophers’  Room,’  No.  55,  Mus.  Capit.  i.  57  ; ( b and  c ) in  the  Museo  Torlonia,  Nos.  54  and  58  (formerly 
52  and  56)  ; (d)  in  the  Ny  Carlsberg  Glypt.  in  Copenhagen. 

2 I have  examined  and  compared  the  following  instances  in  the  original  : (a)  in  Berlin,  Skulpt.  330  ; Arch.  Ztg # 
1871,  Taf.  50 — poor;  (6)  in  Brunswick — mediocre  copy,  the  face  much  polished  over;  (c)  in  the  Brit.  Mus. — 
much  damaged  ; ( d ) in  the  Hermitage,  No.  188 — face  worked  over,  hair  good  ; (c)  in  the  Palazzo  Riccardi 
(Diitschke,  ii.  162) — a very  good  copy,  clear  and  careful  work,  the  nose  antique  ; (/)  in  Rome,  Mus.  Chiaramonti, 
50  ; (g  and  h)  in  the  Villa  Borghese,  Helbig,  926,  930 — the  first  specially  good  ; (i)  in  the  Villa  Albani,  109  ; (k)  in 
the  Coll.  Barracco  ; (/  and  m ) two  very  good  copies  in  the  Museum  at  Cometo  ; (//)  a very  good  copy  in  Naples — 
turreted  crown  restored,  but  draped  term  genuine  ; ( 0 ) in  the  Louvre — a very  good  copy,  but  placed  on  a torso  to 
which  it  does  not  belong,  No.  1739  ; Frohner,  No.  413  ; Bouillon,  i.  50  ; (p)  the  double  term  in  Madrid,  Arch.  Ztg. 
1871,  Taf.  50  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1609.  I only  know  this  from  the  cast  : it  is  one  of  the  best  (Figs.  11,  12). 
All  these  instances  are  real  copies,  and  correspond  in  size.  There  are  besides : ( q ) a free  adaptation  in  colossal 
size  from  Smyrna  in  Constantinople.  This  is  a Hellenistic,  not  a Roman  work  ; the  severity  has  disappeared, 
the  manner  is  grandiose  but  somewhat  coarse.  The  existence  of  this  copy  shows  that  the  original  must  have  been 
famous  in  the  Pergamene  period  ; (r)  a free  replica  on  a small  scale,  a head,  which  has  been  placed  on  the 
Ludovisi  group  (Schreiber,  50).  There  is  a beautiful  antique  variant  in  Oxford  of  the  same  style  and  with  the  same 
narrow  eyes  (casts  in  the  Ecole  des  Beaux- Arts,  in  the  South  Kensington  Museum,  at  Bonn,  etc.)  This  head 
must  be  referred  to  another  work  from  the  inner  circle  of  the  master. 

3 K.  Lange,  Ath.  Mitth.  1881,  93,  has  already  classified  this  type  with  that  of  the  Parthenos.  Compare 
especially  the  Minerve  au  collier  in  the  Louvre,  where  the  hair  on  the  left  side  is  evidently  a faithful  copy. 

4 Especially  in  ( e ),  (g),  (0). 

5 The  attitude  varies  slightly  in  the  different  examples  ; the  heads  (e),  (f),  (g)  are  turned  to  the  left,  while 
(k),  (z),  (zz),  ( o ) are  turned  to  the  right.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  all  these  heads  belonged  to  terms  ; the 
copyists  turned  the  head  now  one  way,  now  another,  for  decorative  reasons.  The  same  was  the  case  with  the 
Skopasian  Heraldes. 

6 The  colossal  replica  (p)  is  evidence  to  the  contrary.  7 Helbig,  Museums,  926. 

8 This  charming  figure,  about  30  cm.  high,  is  intact,  with  the  exception  of  the  left  arm.  Beside  the  left  leg 

is  a vase  with  the  discarded  drapery  over  it.  The  head  is  much  inclined.  The  same  motive,  with  reversed  sides, 


Fig.  20. — Double  terminal  bust  in  Madrid. 


68 


PH  El  DIAS 


If  the  head  had  not  been  originally  meant  to  represent  an  Aphrodite,  it  could  hardly 
have  been  adopted  for  the  goddess  in  this  instance. 

Unless  the  Pheidian  original  was  itself  a term,1  it  must,  from  the  indication 
of  a chiton  on  one  of  the  busts,  have  represented  the  goddess  draped.2 

Thus,  we  may  claim  to  have  recovered  an  Aphrodite  of  Pheidias  : it  was  perhaps 
the  one  in  Rome  in  Octavio;  operibus , distinguished  by  Pliny  as  eximiae  pulchritu- 
dinis.  These  words  of  praise,  as  well  as  the  statement  that  the  statue  was  in  Rome, 
fit  in  admirably  with  the  existing  copies.  The  eximia  pulchritudo  of  the  work  must 


a 


b 

Fig.  21. — Profiles  of  the  double  terminal  bust. 


at  once  be  acknowledged.  It  has  the  majestic  and  elevated  beauty  which  distinguishes 
all  that  Pheidias  did,  combined  with  a winning  sweetness  of  expression.  This  is  the 
goddess  who,  as  the  Attic  vases  show,  dwells  in  fresh  gardens  where  golden  fruits 

is  to  be  seen  on  a carnelian,  apparently  a purely  Hellenistic  work  (Caylus,  Rec.  d'Ant.  vi.  38,  4).  For  the 
signature  Skopas  cf.  my  article,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  (1893)  viii.  185. 

1 Terminal  Aphrodite  in  Athens,  Paus.  i.  19,  2. 

2 See  the  Naples  copy  («).  Some  notion  of  the  statue  that  belonged  to  this  head-type  may  be  formed 
from  the  so-called  ‘ Sappho  Albani,’  now  generally  interpreted  as  a Kore  or  Demeter  (Helbig,  841)  ; it  is  a 
work  of  the  Pheidian  period,  though  manifestly  not  by  Pheidias.  Cf.  R.  v.  Schneider,  Jahrb.  d.  Oesterr.  Hofmu- 
seen,  xii.  72.  A good  illustration  in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  255.  Besides  the  replicas  mentioned 
by  Schneider  there  are  : (1)  a torso  in  the  Louvre,  No.  2001  ; Frohner,  Not.  No.  574  ; (2)  a poor  torso  half  life- 
size,  also  in  the  Louvre,  No.  2912  ; and  (3)  a half  life-size  figure  with  head  restored  in  Naples.  The  type,  as 
Sauer  ( Festschrift fiir  Overbeck,  p.  73)  shows,  already  occurs  on  one  of  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon. 


APHRODITE  AND  EROS 


69 


grow,  where  nymphs  and  Erotes  serve  her,  where  reign  harmony  and  bliss  j1  but  she 
is  a goddess  still,  not  a mortal  woman  with  human  feelings  and  desires,  such  as 
Praxiteles  was  to  conceive  her. 

One  of  the  copies  of  this  Aphrodite  head  appears  on  a double  term  associated 
with  the  head  of  a youth  (Figs.  20  a,  21  a)2  which  must  also  have  been  famous,  since 
it  occurs  separately  in  various  replicas.3  The  delicate 
young  face  is  framed  in  full  curls  which  cover  the  ears  ; a 
circlet  presses  deeply  into  the  mass  of  hair.  In  some 
at  least  of  the  examples  a fillet  is  wound  round  the  circlet. 

The  artistic  kinship  of  this  head  to  the  Aphrodite  is 
evident.  They  are  both  works  of  Pheidias,  and  nearly 
contemporary.  The  stylistic  treatment  of  the  hair  and 
of  the  face  (especially  of  the  full,  slightly  open  mouth) 
represents  the  same  stage  of  development  as  the  Aphrodite. 

The  youth  who  appears  united  with  Aphrodite  on  a 
double  term  should,  according  to  all  analogy,  be  nearly 
related  to  her  in  significance.  He  can  be  none  other  than 
Eros,  who  in  the  time  of  Pheidias4  was  represented — not 
as  an  effeminate  youth,  but — as  an  ephebe.  A good 

instance  of  the  Pheidian  Eros  type,  nearly  akin  to  the  head  we  are  studying,  is  to 
be  seen  on  a cameo  of  the  Berlin  collection  (Fig.  22),  presumably  of  the  Augustan 
period.  It  represents  just  such  a terminal  bust  of  Eros  as  the  one  in  question, 
whose  original  may  actually  have  been  executed  in  this  form.  If  our  interpretation 
is  exact,  it  is  plain  that  Pheidias  did  not  give  to  his  Love-god,  any  more  than  to  his 
Aphrodite,  the  expression  of  human  longing  which  distinguishes  him  in  the  period  of 
Praxiteles.5 6 

There  is  another  ‘ Sappho  ’ type  which  should  be  noted  here,  as  it  belongs 
originally  to  the  circle  of  Pheidias.  On  a statue  formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Ccpparelli 
in  Florence  (Fig.  23) 0 has  been  placed  a head  evidently  of  later  Pheidian  style,  and 
an  immediate  forerunner  of  the  well-known  Albani  head  which  has  lately  been  again 
interpreted  as  Sappho.7  The  close  connexion  of  the  two  heads,  evidenced  by  the 
coif,  by  the  twisted  curls  in  front  of  the  ear,  and  by  the  general  type  of  face,  is 
unmistakable.  Equally  plain  is  the  fact  that  the  Florentine  head,  as  shown  by  the 
style,  especially  by  the  treatment  of  the  regularly  undulating  hair,  belongs  to  the 
later  Pheidian  period.  The  body  of  the  statue  is  of  the  same  date  as  the  head,  but 

1 Cf.  the  vase  belonging  to  the  period  about  430,  Stackelberg,  Grdber,  29  ; Miiller-Wieseler,  Denkm. 
3rd  ed.  ii.  296  d. 

2 The  Madrid  term  p. 

3 e.g.  Museo  Chiaramonti,  695  (nose  and  lips  restored)  ; in  the  Museo  Torlonia,  44  (nose  and  lips  restored)  ; in 
Dresden,  32  (much  defaced).  Published  in  Becker’s  Augusteum,  ii.  85  ; the  Madrid  copy  is  the  best  ; mouth  and 
nose  are  antique  ; the  fillet  hanging  down  is  merely  a decorative  addition  ; it  is  missing  in  the  Chiaramonti  head. 

4 The  witticism  of  Phryne,  recorded  in  Athenaeus,  xiii.  p.  585,  would  seem  to  prove  the  existence  of  an 
Eros  by  Pheidias  ; it  at  any  rate  implies  a play  on  the  name  <PeiSlas  (cf.  Brunn,  K.G.  i.  p.  1S7)  ; and  though 
this  in  itself  is  insufficient  to  prove  the  existence  of  an  Eros  statue  by  this  master,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
ieu  de  mot  would  have  been  more  pointed  and  appropriate  had  there  been  a well-known  Eros  by  him. 

5 The  Eros  of  the  period,  about  420  B. c.,  with  which  I identify  a small  head  from  Brauron  {Arch.  Studien 
H.  Brunn.  dargebr.  Taf.  3,  p.  89)  is  less  serious  and  more  youthful. 

6 Diitschke,  Zerstr.  Bildw.  in  Florenz,  413  ; now  in  the  Museo  Archeologico. 

7 Jalirb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  Taf.  3 ; p.  151  sqq.  (Winter).  Two  poor  replicas  in  the  Bigliardo  of  the  Villa, 
Nos.  332,  333.  The  Pitti  head  published  Ann.  d.  List.  1879,  Tav.  o,  in  which  Gamurrini  and  Wolters  (Gipsabg. 
1609)  recognize  Sappho,  is  not  a replica  of  the  Albani  head,  as  Winter  (toe.  cit.  p.  152)  affirms,  but  a different 
though  related  type. 


Fig.  22. — Cameo  in  Berlin. 


70 


PHEIDIAS 


it  is  not  certain  that  they  belong  together.1  The  narrow  eyes  are  characteristic  of 
Aphrodite.  In  order  to  interpret  the  Albani  head,  which,  to  judge  by  the  formation 


Fig.  23. — Statue  formerly  in  Pal.  Cepparelli  (Florence). 


of  the  eyes,  was  derived  from  this  older  type,  we  must  go  to  the  group  of  figures 
representing  Aphrodite,  or  divinities  akin  to  her.  For  there  is  no  evidence  whatever 

1 According  to  a communication  from  Milani  the  head  is  of  the  same  Parian  marble  as  the  torso.  But  as 
the  lower  part  of  the  neck  is  restored,  and  as  the  original  head  was  probably  inserted,  the  present  head  can 
scarcely  belong  to  the  statue. 


APHRODITE  OURANIA 


71 


that  the  head  is  a portrait,  and  nothing  in  the  work  itself  to  warrant  us  in  calling  it 
Sappho.  The  apparent  coincidences  found  on  coins  are  deceptive.1 

Another  Pheidian  Aphrodite — -the  Ourania  in  Athens  (Paus.  i.  14,  7)  I incline  to 


Fig.  24. — Statuette  ot  Aphrodite  (Berlin). 


think — has  survived  in  a statuette  from  Corneto  (Tarquinii),  now  in  Berlin  (Fig.  24), 2 
which  is  evidently  an  original  free  adaptation  made  in  the  actual  school  of  Pheidias. 

1 Pollux  ( Onom . ix.  84)  says  that  the  Mytileneans  represented  Sappho  on  their  coins.  This  is  the  oldest 
testimony  on  the  subject,  for  to  see  an  allusion  to  it  in  Aristot.  Rhet.  2,  23  is  purely  arbitrary.  None  of  the 
extant  coins  of  Mytilene  with  ascertained  representations  of  Sappho  (i.e.  which  give  her  name  in  the  coin  legend) 
are  earlier  than  Imperial  date,  any  more  than  the  coins  of  Chios  with  the  portrait  of  Homer,  which  are 
mentioned  immediately  after  by  Pollux.  Now  of  these  undoubted  representations  of  Sappho,  not  one  shows 
the  least  resemblance  to  the  Albani  type  ; they  differ  from  it  and  from  each  other.  They  are  as  follows  : 
(a)  the  Paris  coin  with  ifa7r(<p)oi,  Jahn,  Darst.  Gr.  Dichter,  Taf.  8,  1 ; (6)  Sappho  seated,  with  and  without  the 
name;  (c)  the  head  inscribed  Sairtpw  on  coins  of  Eresos.  The  coin  inscribed  Karpovs,  Jahn,  Taf.  8,  2,  is  very 
possibly  a forgery.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  hooded  head  of  the  autonomous  bronze  coins  and 
of  an  electrum  coin  of  Mytilene  (Sallet’s  Zeitschr.  ix.  Taf.  4,  4 — 6 % Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  Taf.  3 below) 
represents  Sappho.  In  the  period  before  Alexander,  to  which  some  at  least  of  these  coins  belong,  there  is  no 
instance  of  a portrait  of  a distinguished  person  on  a Greek  coin.  Hence  the  head  must  be  a divinity,  perhaps 
Aphrodite.  The  coif  was  a favourite  headdress  in  Asia  Minor.  Thus  Winter’s  hypothesis,  that  Seilanion  was 
the  artist  of  the  Albani  head,  is  untenable.  The  Sappho  of  Seilanion  is  still  to  seek. 

2 Berlin.  Sknlpt.  586,  h.  o.  83.  Hands,  feet,  and  some  trifling  details  are  restored  together  with  the  face 
of  the  idol. 


Fig.  25. — Two  heads  of  Athena  from  casts  in  Dresden. 

From  a lost  original.  B— Head  of  Athena  Farnese  (Naples). 


PUPILS  OF  PHEIDIAS 


73 


Aphrodite,  leaning  upon  her  own  ancient  image  and  drawing  her  veil  aside  with  her 
right  hand,  is  represented  in  solemn  repose — in  a sort  of  subdued  majesty.  The  left  foot 
rests  on  the  ground  with  full  sole,  and  is  placed  somewhat  to  the  front.  The  drapery 
- — more  especially  the  folded-over  portion  of  the  himation  in  front — is  quite  in  the 
style  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.1  The  head  is  of  the  usual  genuine  Attic  type  of  the 
Pheidian  epoch : its  finer  details,  however,  have  been  left  out  in  this  small 

reproduction.2 


IX.  Pheidias  and  his  Pupils — Alkamenes  and  Agorakritos. 

We  must  now  try  to  trace  the  career  of  Pheidias  beyond  the  period  of  the 
Parthenos.  Among  the  many  works  which  are  more  or  less  related  to  our  subject 
we  select  a significant  statue,  again  representing  Athena,  which  throws  light  on  the 
relations  between  the  master  and  his  pupils. 

Fig.  25  reproduces  side  by  side  two  heads  of  Athena,  both  from  casts  in 
Dresden.  The  head  on  the  right  hand  (B)  is  evidently  taken  from  the  well-known 
Athena  Farnese  in  Naples  (Fig.  26).3 4  The  original  of  the  other  cast  (Fig.  25,  A ; profile, 
Fig.  28) 4 has  disappeared,  but  even  from  the  cast  it  is  absolutely  clear  that  the  bust, 
with  the  ends  of  the  curls  and  of  the  bunch  of  hair  behind,  is  modern,  while  the 
neck,  with  the  portion  of  the  curls  adjoining  it  and  the  upper  part  of  the  bunch  of 
hair  behind,  is  antique.  The  restorer  copied  the  bust  of  the  Cassel  Athena,  or  of 
one  of  the  two  Lemnia  statues  in  Dresden,  but  he  misunderstood  the  drapery  on  the 
shoulder. 

The  two  heads  go  back  to  two  different  Greek  originals,  and  yet  they  are 
so  similar  in  certain  external  particulars  that  we  cannot  suppose  them  to  be  entirely 
independent  of  each  other.  The  hair  in  front  corresponds  even  in  the  form  and 
number  of  separate  strands.  The  principal  proportions  (length  of  face  and  of  eyes) 
are  the  same  in  both.  The  helmets  differ  only  in  so  far  that  while  on  A there  are  griffins 
beside  the  Sphinx,  on  B (the  upper  part  of  the  helmet  has  been  left  out  in  the 
cast ; cf.  Fig.  26)  there  are  Pegasoi  ; further,  A has  a volute  at  the  side  instead  of  the 
turned-up  cheek-piece  of  B.  The  curls  on  the  neck  are  different.  In  B there  are 
two  short  artificially  twisted  spiral  curls,  while  A shows  a curl  slightly  waved  and 
falling  naturally,  apparently  divided  in  the  middle,  and  in  the  continuation,  now 
lost,  probably  parting  into  two  separate  strands.  Great  differences  are  noticeable  in 
the  finer  modelling  of  the  face  ; A is  on  the  whole  narrower  and  more  delicate,  the 
forehead  is  lower  than  in  B,  the  nose  somewhat  longer  and  narrower,  and  the  mouth 
narrower.  Finally,  the  eyelids  of  A are  thin,  those  of  B very  thick,  while  the 

1 2.  e.  in  short  grooves  rounded  at  the  ends.  Cf.  Pallat,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1894,  p.  17.  For  the  chiton  cf.  the 
‘ Peitho  ’ of  the  E.  frieze. 

2 A later  echo  of  this  Pheidian  creation  occurs  in  the  statue  recently  published  by  Kekule,  Weibliche 
Gewandstatue  aus  d.  IVerkstatt  d.  Parthenon  Giebel.  1894. 

3 Gerhard  u.  Panofka,  Neapels  Ant.  Bildw.  (1828),  p.  41,  No.  118  ; Clarac,  PI.  458,  851  A. 

4 Hettner  says  it  is  in  the  Hope  collection  ( Verz.  d.  Abg.  p.  109,  No.  172)  ; but  in  that  collection  there  is 
only  the  well-known  statue  (Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculpt,  p.  290,  No.  39),  and  the  cast  cannot  possibly  be  of  this  statue, 
because  of  the  difference  in  the  bust.  Even  if  we  leave  the  restored  bust  out  of  account  the  curls  on  the  neck  do 
not  exactly  correspond  ; in  the  Hope  statue  each  is  separated  more  distinctly  into  two  parts,  so  that  it  could  not 
easily  be  mistaken  for  a single  curl  as  the  restorer  has  done.  The  Dresden  cast  is  not  from  the  Mengs  collection  ; 
its  original  is  unknown.  There  is  a second  example  of  it  in  Bonn  ; Welcker  \Bonner  Kunstmus.  155  = Kekule, 
306)  says  vaguely  that  the  original  is  in  England.  A third  copy  of  the  cast  is  in  the  Humboldt  collection  in  Schloss 
Tegel ; the  Waagen  catalogue  says  nothing  of  the  original.  In  the  New  Museum  of  Berlin,  built  by  Stiiler,  this 
cast  has  been  adapted  for  a decorative  head. 

L 


Fig.  26. — Athena  Farnese  (Naples). 


Fig.  27.— Hope  Athena  in  the  collection  at  Deepdene,  Surrey.  (From  Spec.  of  Anc.  Sculpture.) 


76 


PHEIDIAS 


modelling  of  the  forehead,  the  curve  of  the  eyebrows,  and  the  formation  between 
eyebrow  and  upper  lid  are  completely  different  in  the  two  examples. 

The  head  If  is  still  unbroken  on  its  statue,  the  Athena  Farnese  in  Naples. 
Head  A,  too,  has  a body  belonging  to  it,  for  it  is  a replica  of  the  famous  Hope 
Athena  (Fig.  27)  at  Deepdcne  (Surrey),  from  whose  priceless  collection,  unfortun- 
ately, students  and  public  alike  are  now  jealously  excluded.1  This  and  the  Athena 
Farnese  were  formerly  looked  upon  as  copies  of  the  same  original;2  but  more 
exact  comparison  will  show  that  this  is  not  the  case.  Head  A,  in  all  those  particulars 
in  which  it  differs  from  head  B,  corresponds  exactly  to  the  Hope  Athena.  In 
this  statue  the  curls  disfigured  by  restoration  on  head  A are  seen  in  their  proper 
form.  They  split  naturally  into  two  wavy  ringlets  falling  down  over  the  aegis. 
In  spite  of  the  remarkable  external  similarity  between  the  two  statues,  they  differ 
not  only  in  the  type  of  head,  helmet,  and  side-curls,  but  also  in  other  respects. 
To  begin  at  the  top,  the  opening  in  the  middle  of  the  aegis  is  wider  in  the 
Hope  statue,  and  shows  more  of  the  chiton  ; the  gorgoneion  is  of  a distinct  type 
with  hair  not  raised  on  end  but  smoothly  waved  close  to  the  head,  as  on  the  aegis  of 
the  Parthenos.  The  snakes  on  the  aegis  correspond  on  the  whole,  but  they  are 
arranged  in  less  conventional  circles,  and  although  not  so  effective  are  more  various 
and  natural  (note  especially  the  second  snake  from  the  top  on  the  left  shoulder,  which 
is  so  much  more  simply  rendered  in  the  Hope  statue,  and  thus  affords  a better 
motive  for  the  bend  in  the  edge  of  the  aegis).  The  folds  of  the  chiton  under  the  left 
arm  and  of  the  edge  of  the  mantle  next  it  are  more  broken,  less  schematic  and 
more  natural.  The  upper  part  of  the  sleeve  on  the  left  arm  is  shorter  and  simpler, 
the  folds  of  the  mantle  itself  are  heavier  and  better  defined  at  the  edges,  the  abdomen 
is  not  so  visible  under  the  folds  as  in  the  Farnese  Athena.  In  all  these  peculiarities  of 
the  drapery  the  Hope  statue  more  nearly  resembles  the  Albani  Athena,  which  we 
shall  study  immediately.  Further,  the  position  of  the  feet  is  slightly  different  in  the 
two  statues.  In  the  Hope  statue  the  left  foot  is  not  drawn  back  quite  so  far  as  in  the 
Farnese,  which  is  really  in  the  walking  attitude. 

The  assumption  that  these  variations  are  all  due  to  different  copyists,  and  that 
there  is  only  one  original  in  the  background,  is  not  difficult  to  refute.  For  these 
alterations  are  not  arbitrary  caprices  intended  to  suit  a later  taste  ; they  are  syste- 
matic, thoroughgoing  distinctions,  which  manifest  themselves  most  clearly  just 
where  the  finest  artistic  feeling  comes  to  light — that  is,  in  the  forms  of  the  face.3 

We  next  have  to  consider  which  of  the  two  types  is  the  older  and  more  original, 


1 I have  not  seen  the  statue,  but  the  engravings  [Spec,  of  Anc.  Sc.  i.  25  and  ii.  9)  seem  accurate  and  reliable. 
Cf.  Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculpt,  p.  290.  The  head  is  inserted,  not  broken  : only  the  nose  is  restored.  On  the  head 
A the  nose  seems  to  be  ancient. 

2 I did  the  same  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  700. 

3 Of  the  Hope  type  I only  know  the  one  replica,  now  lost,  of  which  we  possess  a cast.  The  Farnese  type 
exists  in  five  replicas  : ( a ) fragment  of  head  in  Dresden,  formerly  placed  on  one  of  the  Lemnia  statues,  Becker, 
Augusteum , i.  15  ; cf.  supra , p.  5 ; (b ) statue  in  the  Louvre,  wrong  head,  Bouillon,  iii.  stat.  PI.  2,  4 ; Clarac, 
320,  852  ; Frohner,  115  ; now  No.  1650  ; (c)  Demidoff  statue,  wrong  head,  Clarac,  470,  895  ; ( d ) Albani  statue, 
now  lost,  Cavaceppi,  Raccolta,  i.  1 ; Clarac,  458,  901  ; a sketch  of  it  in  Quatremere  de  Quincy,  Jup.  Olymp.  (1815), 
PI.  9,  4.  The  statue  is  exactly  like  the  Farnese  one,  except  that  the  eyes  are  hollow.  Winckelmann  expresses 
great  admiration  for  this  statue,  and  distinguishes  it  clearly  from  the  Albani  statue  with  the  skin  helmet. 
When  he  speaks  of  the  Pallas  in  hohem  Stil  of  the  Villa  Albani,  e.g.  (Hist,  of  Anc.  Art.  Bk.  viii.  2,  § 4 ; tr. 
Lodge,  ii.  133),  he  invariably  means  the  Cavaceppi  statue,  not  the  one  with  the  skin-helmet,  as  Friederichs, 
Bausteine,  86  ( = Wolters,  524),  maintained.  Cf.  the  Meyer-Schulze  ed.  vol.  iv.  p.  339,  n.  331  =lr.  Lodge,  i. 
476,  and  for  the  profile  PI.  XVIII.  A of  the  latter  work.  According  to  the  Specimens  of  Ancient  Sculpture 
(on  i.  25),  this  Albani  statue  was  brought  to  Paris  : it  is,  however,  not  to  be  found  in  the  Louvre. — A head  in  Palazzo 
Torlonia  is  very  similar  to,  but  not  quite  identical  with,  the  Farnese  type. 


THE  HOPE  ATHENA 


77 


and  which  is  the  derivative.  After  our  enumeration  of  the  separate  distinctions  the 
answer  can  scarcely  be  doubtful : the  Hope  type  is  the  earlier.  The  position  of  the 
feet  and  the  treatment  of  the  drapery  are  evidences  of  an  earlier  stage  of  development  ; 
the  long  curls  on  the  breast  and  the  lower  forehead  are  equally  certain  marks  of  the 
same  ; and  in  general  the  greater  naturalness  and  simplicity  which  we  have  observed 
in  this  work  imply  a greater  degree  of  originality. 

Pheidias  himself  must  be  the  author  of  the  Hope  type.  The  head  is  another 
example  not  only  of  marvellous  and  peculiar  beauty,  but  of  a style  purely  Pheidian. 
In  essential  and  personal  characteristics  its  kinship  to  the  Lemnia  is  so  close  as 


Fig  28. — Profile  of  the  head  of  Athena  (A,  Fig.  25). 


to  carry  conviction.  Quality  of  this  sort  is  not  easy  to  define  in  words  ; all  we  can 
do  is  to  lay  stress  on  certain  details.  The  forehead,  slightly  raised  in  the  middle,  is 
very  delicately  modelled  ; the  eyebrows  are  curved  as  in  the  Lemnia,1  the  line  being 
more  nearly  horizontal  than  in  the  Athena  Farnese,  Thus  the  part  between  eyebrow 
and  upper  lid  is  sparely  modelled  and  slightly  concave,  a peculiarity  which  the  Lemnia 
and  the  Hope  types  have  in  common,  and  which  distinguishes  them  from  the 
Farnese  type.  Again,  the  thin  eyelids,  the  gentle  transition  between  the  under  lid 

1 It  was -when  I observed  the  analogy  between  the  Dresden  cast  A and  the  Bologna  head  that  it  first  occurred 
to  me  that  the  latter  was  a copy  of  the  Lemnia. 


78 


PHEIDIAS 


and  the  cheek,  the  narrow,  finely  cut  nose  forming  a decided  angle  with  the  forehead, 
are  as  many  points  that  resemble  the  Lemnia  and  differ  from  the  Farnese  head. 
Lastly,  the  mysterious  beauty  of  the  mouth  may  be  compared  to  the  Lemnia.  The 
general  contour  of  the  face,  too,  with  its  slender  and  refined  proportions,  is  similar. 
The  hair  recalls  the  style  of  the  Lemnia  ; it  springs  out  in  soft  full  masses,  on  which 
the  separate  lines  are  vigorously  but  not  deeply  cut.  Although  the  hair  of  the 
Farnese  head  is  dressed  in  the  same  way,  the  rendering  is  harder  and  more  schematic. 

Compared  with  the  Hope  type  the  Farnese  head  seems  rough,  even  coarse  ; it  is 
also  beautiful,  but  its  beauty  is  as  the  beauty  of  a head  by  Giulio  Romani  beside  one 
by  Raphael.  The  master  who  made  it  was  on  less  intimate  terms  with  nature  than 
the  creator  of  the  Hope  type:  he  aims  at  more  powerful  effects,  and,  in  doing  so, 
becomes  more  conventional  and  formal.  The  deeper  mysteries  of  Pheidian  beauty 
were  unrevealed  to  him  ; his  coarser  sensibilities  expressed  themselves  in  ruder  forms 
which  possibly  seemed  to  him  more  appropriate  to  the  powerful  personality  of  Athena. 

Wherever  in  modern  art  we  have  opportunity  for  comparison,  we  find  that 
between  the  works  of  the  really  great  masters  and  those  of  their  most  imme- 
diate and  favoured  pupils  a great  gulf  is  fixed.  However  remarkable  the  external 
similarity  of  their  works,  in  the  finer  inner  elements  they  are  wide  apart,  for  the 
‘ inimitable  never  lies  in  externals.’ 1 No  wonder,  then,  if  we  recognize  a decided 
difference  between  the  work  of  Phcidias  and  that  of  the  pupil  to  whom  we  owe  the 
PArnese  type. 

The  work  of  Phcidias  should  be  assigned  to  the  period  shortly  after  the 
Parthcnos.  The  wreath  of  snakes  round  the  aegis  follows  the  new  system  of  which 
the  Parthcnos  affords  the  earliest  example.2  There  is  more  animation  and  freedom 
in  the  attitude,  the  left  foot  being  turned  more  outwards  and  drawn  farther  back  than 
in  the  Parthcnos.  The  goddess  thus  conceived  manifests  neither  the  serious  severity 
of  the  Lemnia  nor  the  solemnity  of  the  Parthenos  in  her  hall  of  state.  She  is 
gentler  and  softer.  With  an  animated  gesture  of  kindly  greeting  she  bends  her  head 
and  steps  forward  to  receive  her  worshippers.  In  her  right  hand  she  bore,  not  the 
Nike  of  processions,  but  more  probably  only  a kylix.  Her  drapery  is  softer  and 
richer  than  in  the  other  statues  ; she  wears  not  the  pcplos  of  the  severe  maiden,  but 
the  old  Ionic  costume,  which  at  that  time,  as  we  see  from  vases,  was  still  in 
great  vogue  in  Athens. 

It  is  extremely  likely  that  the  original  was  of  bronze  ; perhaps  it  was  the  very 
statue  mentioned  by  Pliny  (xxxiv.  54)  which  Paulus  Aemilius  dedicated  in  Rome. 

In  the  Villa  Albani  is  a bronze  head  barely  half  life-size,  broken  off  a statue,  and 
fixed  on  an  alabaster  figure  to  which  it  does  not  belong.3  It  is  a noble  head  of 
admirable  workmanship,  a free  rendering  of  the  Idope  Athena.  The  side-curls  are 
missing,  and  the  hair  leaves  the  ears  freer.  Otherwise  not  only  in  externals  but  in 
expression  the  head  corresponds  with  the  Hope — not  the  Farnese  type.  This  is  a 
very  valuable  monument,  which  deserves  to  be  better  known.4 

In  the  same  Villa  is  the  well-known  Athena  wearing  the  skin  helmet  (Fig. 
2g).5  The  great  similarity  of  the  body  with  that  of  the  Hope  statue  compels  us  to 

1 Justi,  Velasquez,  ii.  283.  2 Compare  supra,  p.  10. 

3 Clarac,  PI.  462  C,  902  ; Villa  Albani,  No.  945.  Sphinx  and  griffins  on  the  helmet  are  restored.  The 

alabaster  figure  is  antique,  but  does  not  belong  to  the  head. 

4 Winckelmann,  Hist,  of  Auc.  Art.  vii.  1,  § 21  (Vol.  v.  89,  note  2,  ed.  Eiselein),  calls  it  ‘a  glorious 
head  of  a lofty  character  ’ (tr.  Lodge,  ii.  385) ; later  critics  seem  to  have  overlooked  it.  (Cf.  Roscher’s 
Lex.  i.  700,  23.) 

5 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  524  ; Helbig,  Museums,  781  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  226. 


Fig.  29.  —Athena  in  ihe  Villa  Albani,  Rome. 


8o 


PHEIDIAS 


draw  a close  analogy  between  the 
two.  The  drapery  is  essentially 
the  same,  except  that  here  the 
diplo'is  is  longer,  while  the  position 
of  the  legs  differs  only  in  so  far 
that  the  left  foot  is  rather  less 
drawn  back  in  the  Albani  statue 
than  in  the  Hope.  Indeed,  all  the 
earlier  features  which  the  Hope 
statue  shows  in  contradistinction 
to  the  Farnese  type  appear  in 
rather  more  pronounced  form  in 
the  Albani  statue.  Another  mark 
of  older  origin  is  the  thick  stiff 
edge  of  the  aegis  and  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  snakes. 

This  work  must  be  connected 
in  some  way  with  Pheidias.  The 
idea  that  it  may  have  been  one 
of  the  prototypes  from  which  he 
worked  may  be  dismissed,  for  how 
should  Pheidias  at  the  highest 
point  of  his  creative  power  have 
clung  so  closely  to  a type  by 
another  artist  ? The  head-type  is  another  proof  to  the  contrary  (profile,  Fig.  30)  ; 
for  it  is  remarkably  severe  in  style,  so  that  there  is  a certain  incongruity  between 
head  and  body.  This  is  a mark,  not  of  an  independent  creative  artist  of  the  first 
rank,  but  of  an  inferior  worker  who  failed  in  unity  of  conception.1 

1 The  curious  hide  (clearly  that  of  a wolf  or  dog,  and  not  of  a lion)  drawn  over  the  head  deserves  elucidation. 
Winckelmann  rightly  observed  that  the  muzzle  was  pointed,  and  called  it  a dog-skin,  Hist,  of  Anc.  Art.  ii.  2,  § 21 
( =tr.  Lodge,  p.  184,  and  note,  p.  428).  A similar  head-covering  in  ancient  art  occurs,  so  far  as  I know,  only  in 
the  following  instances  : (a)  on  a youthful  male  winged  figure  on  an  Attic  statuette-vase  belonging  to  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century  ( Ath . Mitt//.  1882,  Taf.  12,  p.  381  sqq.  Mylonas) — the  cap  corresponds  exactly  to  our  statue  ; (b) 
on  two  images  of  Hades  in  Etruscan  tombs  of  the  fourth  century  (Conestabile,  Pitt.  xi.  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  ix.  15)  ; (r) 
on  ahead  on  a coin  of  Amisos  of  the  first  century  B.C.  (Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Pontus,  etc. , PI.  4,  3,  p.  xvi.,  Head, 
Hist.  Num.  425)  ; ( d ) it  is  worn  by  Athena  on  two  Roman  monuments  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Treves 
(Hettner,  Rom.  Steindenkmdler , No.  27,  d. ; 55)  : the  pointed  ears  show  quite  clearly  that  the  head  is  that  of  a 
dog,  and  not  of  a lion.  In  ( b ) it  is  certainly  the  cap  of  Hades,  the  "'AiSos  Kvvir)  of  the  Epos,  which,  by  a play  on 
words,  is  represented  as  the  skin  of  a dog  (cf.  Helbig,  Annali , 1870,  27)  ; the  type  must  be  of  Greek  invention. 
The  same  interpretation  is  very  likely  correct  for  (a),  and  the  daemon  carrying  off  the  girl  may  be  Thanatos  ; 
in  a replica  in  Berlin  (Vases,  2906)  the  figure  wears  an  ordinary  Phrygian  cap,  and  the  artist  probably  had  some 
other  intention.  In  the  case  of  (r)  also  this  interpretation  seems  the  most  likely,  for  the  head,  which  I think  is 
male,  probably  represents  Perseus,  so  often  celebrated  on  the  coins  of  Amisos  : he  is  wearing  the  cap  of  Hades. 
The  corresponding  head-covering  for  Athena  can  hardly  have  a different  meaning.  The  passage  in  the 
Iliad  where  Athena  in  the  conflict  with  Ares  puts  on  the  cap  of  Hades  (v.  845)  seems  to  prove  that  in 
some  cultus  known  to  the  poet  Athena  possessed  the  vAi'5os  Kvver)  as  an  attribute.  Such,  for  instance,  might 
be  the  cultus  of  Athena  Itonia,  who  was  worshipped  together  with  Hades  in  her  old  sanctuary  near  Koroneia 
( Strabo , p.  41 1)  ; Foucart's  proposal  {Bull.  d.  Corr.  Hell.  1885,  427  sqq.)  to  read  “Ap^s  for  "AiS-qs  is  made 
impossible  by  Pausanias,  ix.  34,  1,  who  calls  the  companion  god  Zeus;  Hades  might  be  confused  with  Zeus, 
but  not  so  Ares.  It  is  instructive  to  note  that  the  same  Homeric  singer  who  thinks  of  Athena  as  wearing  the  cap 
of  Hades  also  gives  her  the  surname  'A\a\Ko/ui.evr}is  (II.  iv.  8 ; v.  908) ; the  ancient  sanctuary  at  Alalkomenai  was 
the  nearest  neighbour  of  the  Itonian  sanctuary  (for  locality  see  Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  1894,  475)  ; the  group  of  Hades 
and  Athena  by  Agorakritos,  in  the  Itonian  temple,  probably  survives  on  a gem  (Gori,  Mus.  Flor.  ii.  PI.  72, 
i.  ; Miiller-Wieseler,  ii.  226  ; Overbeck,  Zeus,  46  sqq. ; Gescli.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  278)  ; the  two  divinities 
are  here  enthroned.  Now  Athena  Itonia  was  also  worshipped  in  Athens,  and  in  the  fifth  century  she 


KALAMIS  AND  MIS  SCHOOL 


8 1 

The  other  hypothesis,  that  the  work  is  by  a pupil  of  Pheidias,  is  disproved  by  the 
evidence  of  the  head,  which  is  of  an  earlier  type,  and  has  features  which  entirely 
differ  in  style  from  the  work  of  Pheidias.  A third  possibility  remains,  that  the  work 
is  by  a contemporary  of  Pheidias,  who  belonged  to  a school  more  dependent  on  early 
tradition,  but  who  made  use  of  the  creation  of  Pheidias  as  a prototype  for  the  body 
and  drapery  of  his  statue. 

What  this  school  was  we  shall  be  able  to  define  more  exactly  if  we  look  at 
the  head  of  the  statue  ; for  the  head  is  in  style  the  immediate  successor  of  a closely 
connected  group  of  monuments,  of  which  the  Hestia  Giustiniani,  the  ‘Aspasia,’1  the 
so-called  Omphalos  Apollo,  and  the  ‘ Charioteer  ’ of  the  Capitol  are  among  the 
most  pronounced  examples.2  The  Albani  Athena  represents  a later  stage  of  the 
same  style.  We  have  already  assigned  (p.  55)  two  heads  of.  Pheidian  period,  the 
river  god  of  the  Braccio  Nuovo  and  the  Capitol  head  (Fig.  11),  to  the  artist  who 
made  the  original  of  the  Albani  statue.  To  these  we  may  add,  as  nearly  related, 
the  so-called  Lysias  of  the  Villa  Albani  (No.  62),  and  a beautiful  head  of  a youth 


Fig.  31. — Head  in  Munich. 

in  Munich  (Fig.  3 1 ),3  of  somewhat  freer  style.  These  works  form  a close  group 
sharply  differentiated  from  other  contemporary  productions  by  the  arrangement  of 
the  hair  over  the  forehead,  the  formation  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  and  the 
peculiar  expression  of  the  mouth. 

Now  this  school,  whose  earlier  stage  falls  about  480 — 460,  and  whose  later  stage 
coincided  with  the  career  of  Pheidias,  about  460 — 440,  may  in  my  view  be  identified 
with  the  school  of  Kalamis,  for  this  master  of  quadrigae  and  bigae  was  very  probably 
the  author  of  the  charioteer.4  A work  like  the  Albani  statue  would  certainly  be 
very  appropriate  to  Praxias,  the  pupil  of  Kalamis  and  contemporary  of  Pheidias. 
There  are  many  other  traces  of  this  Kalamidian  influence  which  kept  its  own 

had  her  own  treasury  there,  and  therefore  perhaps  also  her  own  image  ( C . I.  A.  i.  210),  of  which  the  Albani  statue 
may  be  a replica.  On  the  vase-painting  of  the  severe  R.  F.  style  ( Mon . d.  Inst.  vi.  58,  2)  there  is  a hint  of  Hades 
being  associated  to  Athena  in  Athens  ; Athena  is  placed — not  beside  Zeus,  Hera,  and  Apollo,  but — beside  Poseidon 
and  Hades,  towards  whom  she  turns  her  head.  For  a cult  of  Athena  Itonia  in  Thessaly,  cf.  Paus.  x.  I,  10.  [d) 

would  seem  to  prove  that  the  cult  of  Athena  Itonia  made  its  way  as  far  as  the  Roman  provinces  of  Treves. 

1 There  are  two  good  copies  : (a)  Berlin,  Skulpt.  605  ; Arch.  Ztg.  1877,  Taf.  8.  ( h ) Louvre,  No.  558  (phot. 

Giraudon,  1219).  2 Bull.  d.  Comiss.  Coinmun.  di  Roma,  1888,  Tav.  15,  16;  Helbig,  Museums , 597. 

3 Glyptothek,  49.  A very  similar  head  in  Palazzo  Torlonia. 

4 For  the  Omphalos  Apollo  as  presumably  a work  of  Kalamis  cf.  50th  Bcrl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  150. 

M 


82 


PHEIDIAS 


side  by  side  with  that  of  Pheidias.  For  example,  in  the  interesting  ‘ Demeter  ’ with  the 
veil 1 of  the  Berlin  gallery  pose  and  drapery  has  been  influenced  by  Pheidias,  and 
seems  to  be  more  recent  than  the  Parthenos,  while  the  head  is  a direct  successor  of  the 
‘ Aspasia  ’ type. 

The  Herakles  head  of  severe  style,  also  in  Berlin 2 (Fig.  32),  while  belonging 
to  this  group,  has  a character  and  individuality  of  its  own.  I believe  that  the  body 
corresponding  to  this  type  of  head  survives  in  a Herakles  torso  of  the  Louvre  3 (Fig. 
33)  which  may  be  regarded  as  a direct  development  of  the  Omphalos  Apollo. 
The  position  and  attitude  are  the  same,  the  bodily  forms  also  are  similar,  though 
rounder  and  freer.  Herakles  has  tied  the  lion-skin  round  his  neck,  the  end  of  it  falls 
over  his  outstretched  left  forearm,  the  right  hand  rests  on  the  club  ; the  hind  at  the 
left  has  certainly  been  added  by  the  copyist. 

We  must  now  return  to  Pheidias,  and  try  to  gain  some  more  exact  knowledge 
about  the  pupil  who  created  the  Farnese  Athena  type.  The  great  number  of  existing 
copies  justifies  the  conclusion  that  the  artist  was  famous  and  distinguished. 

Here  too  we  must  be  guided  by  the  type  of  head,  always  the  part  of  a statue  on 
which  personal  style  is  most  clearly  impressed.  The  nearest  parallels  to  the  Farnese 
type  are  three  closely  related  heads,  each  of  them  preserved  with  its  statue.  These 
are  the  Capitoline  ‘Hera’  or  ‘Demeter,’4  the  ‘Venus  Genetrix,’ 5 and  the  Barberini 
‘ Hera’  of  the  Vatican.6 7 8 9  The  three  are  remarkably  alike  in  arrangement  and  rendering 
of  hair,  and  in  the  essential  characteristics  of  the  facial  forms — such  as  the  outline  of 
the  rather  broad  face,  the  form  of  the  forehead,  the  attachment  of  the  nose,  the  mouth, 
and  the  somewhat  heavy  eyelids — except  that  the  Aphrodite  has  been  distinctly 
modified  through  stress  being  laid  on  the  qualities  of  grace  and  charm.  To  these 
three  sisters  we  may  now  add  the  Farnese  Athena  as  a fourth. 

Many  have  agreed  with  me  in  identifying  the  ‘ Genetrix  ’ with  the  famous 
Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes  ; this  point  may  now,  I think,  be  considered  fairly  settled.'  In 
the  Capitoline  statue  Petersen  conjectures  we  have  the  Hera  of  Alkamenes.s  I cannot 
feel  quite  sure  that  the  work  is  a Hera,0  but  it  is  certainly  by  the  artist  of  the  Aphrodite. 
Lastly,  the  Barberini  ‘ Hera,’  usually  but  incorrectly  supposed  to  be  of  much  later 

1 Skulpt.  83  ; Overbeck,  Atlas  d.  Kuntsmyth.  Taf.  xv.  25.  In  a painting  by  Michelangelo  Cerquozzi 
(1600 — 1660)  in  the  Cassel  gallery,  No.  516,  this  statue  is  represented  standing  on  a pedestal  in  a garden  ; the 
arms  are  still  unrestored. 

2 Skulpt.  188.  The  bust  seems  to  be  identical  with  the  one  published  in  the  Gall.  Giustin.  2,  2 6.  The 
head  is  antique  only  as  far  as  the  neck,  which  is  of  Parian  marble,  while  the  restored  bust  is  of  coarse  inferior 
bluish  marble.  The  head  was  originally  turned  to  the  right,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  the  right  ear  is 
carelessly  worked,  and  the  left  ear  well  rendered. 

3 No.  1404,  Salle  des  Caryatides. 

4 Overbeck,  Atlas  d.  Kuntsmyth.  xiv.  13,  20;  Antikc  Dcnkm.  i.  55,  1 ; Helbig,  507. 

5 Antike  Dcnkm.  i.  55,  2 ; Gas.  Arch.  1S87,  PI.  30. 

6 Helbig,  Museums,  301  ; Overbeck,  Atlas,  ix.  10,  x.  33. 

7 Cp.  supra,  p.  9,  note  3.  The  doubts  expressed  by  E.  Reisch  ( E ratios  Vindoboncnsis,  p.  18  sqq. ) are 
easily  refuted.  He  asks  why,  out  of  the  great  number  of  Aphrodites  of  the  Pheidian  epoch  known  from 
literature,  only  the  Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes  should  be  taken  into  account  in  estimating  the  Genetrix  figures. 
But  that  ‘ great  number  ’ consists  solely  of  the  two  Aphrodites  by  Pheidias  in  Athens,  and  in  Elis,  and  of 
the  Aphrodite  ev  Kij-rrcns,  by  Alkamenes.  R.  argues  further  that  this  garden  Aphrodite  was  an  Aphrodite 
Ourania,  and  as  the  impersonation  of  ‘ heavenly  ’ love  must  have  looked  more  matronly  than  the  Genetrix ; 
but,  first,  we  do  not  know  that  the  Aphrodite  Iv  Kijirois  was  surnamed  Ourania  ; and,  secondly,  even  if  she  were, 
that  ethical  meaning  of  the  surname  is  a philosophic  notion  dating  not  earlier  than  Plato  (cf.  Plato,  Symp.  viii.  D ; 
Preller- Robert,  Gr.  Myth.  i.  355),  and  can  therefore  have  had  no  influence  upon  Alkamenes. 

8 Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  65  sqq. 

9 The  figure  on  the  relief  mentioned  by  Petersen  cannot  be  a copy  of  the  statue.  It  only  shows  that  Hera 
was  represented  in  the  same  costume,  and  we  know  from  the  monuments  that  the  same  type  was  used  for  different 
goddesses. 


Fig.  32. — Head  of  Herakles  (Berlin). 


84 


I'HEIDI  AS 


date,  shows  clearly  by  the  type  of  head  1 that  it  is  a work  of  the  same  artist,  nor  is 
there  anything  in  the  style  of  the  body  to  contradict  this  view.2  The  transparent 
chiton  is  treated  as  in  the  Aphrodite,  and  the  piece  slipping  down  over  the  left  breast 
betrays  the  same  taste.  Whether  the  statue  was  originally  intended  for  a Hera  is  a 
question  we  must  set  aside  for  the  present.3 

The  Farncse  Athena,  then,  is  probably  also  a work  of  Alkamencs,  doubly 
valuable  to  us  because  it  shows  in  what  relation  the  artist  stood  to  his  master 
Pheidias.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  head-type  he  followed  out  his  own  ideal — an 
ideal  inferior,  it  would  seem,  to  that  of  Pheidias  The  Aphrodite  and  the  Athena 
show  that  within  its  limits  he  could  individualize  strongly.  He  introduces  the 
complete  walking  motive — (in  this  respect  the  Athena  and  the  ‘Hera’  Barberini 
are  closely  allied) — and  everywhere  strives  after  stronger  effects  than  the  master — 
a tendency  which  removes  him  proportionately  far  from  the  simple  observation 
of  nature.4 

According  to  an  anecdote  which  has  only  reached  us  in  a late  and  evidently 
exaggerated  form,5  but  which  undoubtedly  contains  a kernel  of  truth,  Pheidias  and 
Alkamcnes  made  rival  statues  of  Athena  for  a competition  in  which  Pheidias 
obtained  the  prize.  The  story  cannot  be  a mere  late  invention ; it  evidently  underlies 
the  statement  made  by  Pliny,  and  more  in  detail  by  Pausanias,6  to  the  effect  that 
Alkamcnes  was  a contemporary  and  rival  of  Pheidias,  but  obtained  in  competition 
with  him  only  the  second  prize  in  respect  of  knowledge  in  the  making  of  statues. 
Now  the  story  of  such  a competition  might  easily  be  invented  by  a later  generation, 
if  two  Athena  statues  very  similar  to  each  other  were  in  existence,  one  by  Pheidias 
and  one  by  Alkamenes.  We  have  now  sufficient  evidence  from  the  Hope  and 
Farnesc  statues  for  the  assumption  that  this  really  was  the  case. 

Alkamcnes  seems  to  have  been  a very  productive  artist,7  whose  works  were 
much  prized  and  extensively  copied  in  antiquity.  He  must  be  largely  represented 
among  existing  antiques.8  A beautiful  head  over  life-size,  an  admirable  copy, 

1 The  head  of  the  Vatican  statue  is  not  broken,  but  inserted  with  a piece  of  the  chest,  very  well  preserved. 
A good  replica  of  the  head  is  in  Museo  Chiaramonti,  No.  511  A ; Overbeck,  Atlas , ix.  11.  The  head  of  the 
replica  formerly  in  the  Villa  Borghese,  and  now  in  Copenhagen,  is  the  bust ; it  has  never  been  separated  from  the 
statue  ; no  diadem. 

- The  Palatine  torso,  now  in  the  Terme,  is  not  an  exact  copy,  but  adds  Hellenistic  details. 

3 The  sarcophagus  (A/on.  d.  Inst.  iv.  9)  quoted  in  support  of  the  theory  gives  Hera  an  entirely  different  type. 

4 On  the  ground  of  the  statues  just  discussed  some  few  more  works  may  be  ascribed  to  Alkamenes  : e.g.  the 
type  of  the  so-called  Hera  of  Ephesos  known  unfortunately  only  in  a torso  (Friederichs-Wolters,  1273),  which 
exists  in  several  replicas  (cf.  Lanckoronski,  Pamphylien  u.  Pisidien,  i.  p.  94)  ; it  was  also  used  in  Imperial 
times  for  portraits. — The  much-restored  Stockholm  head,  J.  H.  S.  ix.  4 (p.  35,  Farnell),  belongs  also  to  this 
series. 

5 Tzetzes,  Chil.  8,  340  set/.,  353  set/.  ; Overbeck,  S.  Q.  772,  810.  Cf.  supra,  p.  21,  where  it  was  suggested 
that  the  first  part  of  the  anecdote  may  have  arisen  from  the  existence  of  a statue  by  Pheidias  set  upon  a column. 

6 Plin.  xxxiv.  49:  Pheidias  flourished  Ol.  83,  quo  eodem  tempore  aemuli  eius  fuere  Alcamenes  (the  following 
names  are  arbitrarily  added  by  Pliny  ; cf.  my  essay,  Plinius  u.  Seine  Quellen,  p.  22  set/. ) Paus.  v.  10,  8 : ’AA Kapivovs 
avSpbs  r]\iKiav  re  Kara  <Pei8i'av  Kal  8 evrepeTa  ireyKa.fj.4vov  ootplas  is  Trolritnv  ayaX/iaruv.  This  passage  has  been 
much  misunderstood  (also  by  me,  Preuss.  Jahrb.  vol.  li.  380  ; the  later  literature  is  quoted  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890, 
p.  97,  note  37),  owing  to  the  connexion  with  that  anecdote  not  being  recognized. — Plin.  xxxvi.  16,  where 
Pliny  expressly  names  Alkamenes  as  pupil  of  Pheidias,  and  only  as  such,  goes  back  to  another  source. 

7 Opera  complura  in  the  temples  of  Athens,  Pliny,  xxxvi.  16. 

8 Lately  Winter  thought  he  had  discovered  two  originals  by  Alkamenes  (Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  Anz.  1894,  p.  44, 
46)  ; but  the  statue  of  the  Akropolis  cannot  represent  Prokne  and  Itys.  It  is  an  insignificant  coarse  piece  of 
work  ; it  is  quite  impossible  that  Alkamenes  should  have  dedicated  such  a monstrosity  to  the  goddess  (Paus.  i. 
24,  3),  or  exposed  it  to  the  ridicule  of  his  fellow- artists.  The  other  statue  from  Pergamon  is  obviously  not 
a fifth-century  original,  but  only  the  copy  of  one  ; its  workmanship  is  quite  similar  to  that  of  the  Athena 
of  Pergamon  (supra,  p.  27).  The  treatment  of  the  drapery  differs  totally  from  that  of  the  originals  of  the 
Pheidian  school. 


AGORAKRITOS 


85 

certainly  after  Alkamenes,  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  34.1  The  body  is  unknown.  The 
hair  is  gathered  into  a coif  like  that  of  the  Aphrodite  and  of  the  1 Hera  ’ statues  ; 
the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  waves  of  hair,  the  thick  eyelids,  and  the  shape  of  the 
ear  are  the  same.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  whom  the  head  represents.  The  form  of 
cheeks  and  chin  and  the  full  mouth  resemble  the  Farnese  Athena,  so  that  the  head 
very  probably  represents  a bareheaded  Athena.2 

The  works  of  Agorakritos,  Pheidias’s  second  pupil  of  distinction,  must  have  been 


Fig.  33. — Torso  of  Herakles,  Louvre.  (From  a photograph  by  A.  Giraudon.) 

closely  allied  to  those  of  Alkamenes.  This  is  clear  from  the  remaining  figures  of  the 
basis  of  the  Nemesis  of  Rhamnus : their  type  of  face  and  the  rendering  of  the  thin 
transparent  chiton  3 recall  the  works  we  assigned  to  Alkamenes.  Among  the  statues 

1 Berlin,  Skulpt.  608.  Length  of  face  32  cm.  The  end  of  the  nose  is  restored.  Compare  L.  Mitchell, 
Hist,  of  Sc.  p.  321,  and  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  413,  Z.  1.  A head  on  a statue  in  the  cortile  of  the  Pal.  Borghese 
(Matz-Duhn,  1374)  appears  to  be  a replica. 

- In  Roscher’s  Lexikon , loc.  cit.,  I was  misled  by  the  stylistic  resemblance  of  the  head  to  the  Genetrix  into 
thinking  it  an  Aphrodite,  but  the  forms  are  too  massive  and  powerful,  the  carriage  too  vigorous  and  erect,  for  the 

(piA.OjUjiteiSfjs. 

3 ’Etp-rifi.  apx.  1891,  Taf.  8,  9 ; Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1894,  PI.  1 — 7.  Cf.  especially  ’E0.  9,  1 — fahrb . i.  6,  with  the 
Hera  Barberini  and  the  Ephesian  torso.  In  the  Jahrb.,  loc.  cit.  p.  1 6,  Pallat  makes  some  correct  observation 


Fig.  34. — Head  of  a goddess  (Berlin). 


Fig.  36. — Apollo  Barberini  (Munich).  Fig.  35. — ‘Ceres’  in  the  Rotonda  of  the  Vatican.  Fig.  37. — Athena  in  Capitoline  Museum. 


88 


PHEIDIAS 


represented  by  existing  copies  there  are  three  which,  although  they  resemble  the  work 
of  Alkamenes  and  are  certainly  to  be  referred  to  a pupil  of  Pheidias,  yet  point  to 

a different  personality.  They  form  a closely 
compact  group.  The  heads  have  been  pre- 
served with  the  bodies.  I mean  the  colossal 
‘ Ceres  ’ in  the  Vatican  (Fig.  3 5 ),1  the  Barberini 
Apollo  in  Munich  (Fig.  36), 2 and  an  Athena 
in  the  Capitol  (Fig.  3 7).3  Even  external 
details,  such  as  the  peculiar  wide  girdle,  the 
folds  in  the  hem  of  the  diplois , besides  the 
rendering  of  other  parts  of  the  drapery  and  the 
attitude,  prove  that  the  three  works  are  all  by 
one  man.  I am  inclined  to  name  the  artist 
Agorakritos,  and  to  see  in  the  ‘Ceres’  his 
famous  Nemesis.4  This  artist  conceives  divini- 
ties otherwise  than  Alkamenes : his  gods  walk 
with  solemn  processional  gait,  looking  straight 
out,  with  head  erect.  The  artist  aims  at  giving 
a general  effect  of  majestic  dignity  rather  than 
at  individualizing  like  his  fellow-pupil. 

Statues  of  male  divinities  by  Alkamenes 
must  certainly  exist.  I believe  that  the  He- 
phaistos  admired  by  Cicero  survives  in  a beauti- 
ful statue  at  Cassel.  Unfortunately  it  is  only 
a torso,  but  the  workmanship  is  unusually 
good  (Fig.  38). 5 That  it  is  a Hephaistos  and 
a work  of  the  Pheidian  school  seems  to  me 
self-evident.  The  torso  wears  the  exomis  of 
the  craftsman,  girt  with  a leather  strap.  On 
the  left  shoulder  lies  a small  cloak  which  fell 
down  over  the  outstretched  forearm.6  The 
chiton  is  treated  in  the  style  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze.7  The  torso  stands  in  a specially  close 
relation  to  the  Orpheus  relief,  another  monu- 
ment of  this  epoch.  Here  the  clinging  drapery, 
the  fall  of  the  folds  between  the  legs,s  and 
the  delicate  folded  hem  on  the  thighs  and 


on  the  difference  between  the  treatment  of  drapery  still  observed  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  and  that  of  the 
Agorakritos  basis  and  other  later  works. 

1 Helbig,  Museums , 297  ; Brttnn-Bntckmann,  Denkm.  No.  172. 

2 Munich,  Glypt.  90.  Replica,  Bull.  Commun.  1887,  Tav.  20,  21. 

3 In  the  lower  hall,  No.  3 ; Clarac,  461,  858.  An  important  work  with  a genuine  head  spoiled  by  the 
modern  curls  on  the  shoulders  ; behind  the  ears  are  remains  of  the  original  curls.  The  head  is  very  like  the 
Barberini  Apollo. 

4 The  head  seems  to  correspond  with  the  original  fragment  (Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  460  ; cf.  Rossbach,  Ath.  Mitth. 
xv.  46) ; a large  diadem  formerly  rested  on  it.  The  hair  is  simply  taken  up  behind,  the  left  arm  is  wrongly 
restored  as  raised. 

5 Cassel,  ii.  9.  The  statue  was  a short  time  in  Paris,  and  is  engraved  by  Bouillon,  ii.  stat.  Thtlsle.  The  right 
interpretation  as  Hephaistos  is  hinted  at  in  his  text.  The  beautiful  youthful  head  does  not  belong  to  the  statue. 
Our  sketch,  Fig.  38,  gives  the  antique  parts  without  the  restorations  ; marble  Pentelic,  workmanship  fresh  and  good. 

e The  beginning  of  the  elbow  is  still  in  existence.  7 Cf.  north  frieze,  133  ; west  frieze,  23. 

8 Best  example  Villa  Albani,  1031  = Ilelbig,  Museums , 790  ; other  replicas  in  Louvre,  Naples,  etc. 


HEPH AISTOS  BY  ALKAMENES 


89 


upper  arm1  arc  so  surprisingly  like  the  torso  that  one  is  inclined  to  assign  both 
works  to  one  artist.  The  peculiar  formation  of  the  body  proves  that  the  torso 
represents  Hephaistos.  The  chest  is  broad  and  robust,  and  what  is  left  of  the 
arms  (especially  the  right)  shows  a powerful  muscular  development.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  noteworthy  that  the  remains  of  the  legs — i.e.  the  knees  and  parts  immediately 
around  them — are  unusually  small  and  slender.  Now  the  combination  of  a strong 
body  with  weak  legs  is  a characteristic  of  Hephaistos  already  established  in  the 
Homeric  poems.2 

An  Hephaistos  from  the  school  of  Pheidias,  as  we  have  seen  the  Casscl  torso  to 
be,  could  hardly  be  any  other  than  a copy  of  the  famous  statue  of  Alkamenes  formerly 
in  Athens.  We  know  from  Cicero3  that  the  figure  stood  with  both  feet  planted  on 
the  ground.  So  did  the  torso  ; the  weight  of  the  body  is  on  the  left  leg,  and  the 
right  foot  is  placed  at  ease  a little  to  one  side,  but  with  the  sole  full  on  the  ground. 
Cicero  says  the  figure  was  draped,  and  in  this  point  also  the  torso  corresponds.  The 
attitude  of  repose  notwithstanding,  Cicero  professes  to  see  the  lameness  of  the  god 
plainly  indicated  in  the  statue  ; but  he  remarks  that  this  is  clone  without  detracting 
from  the  beauty  of  the  figure.  It  seems  clear  from  this  that  the  figure  must 
have  resembled  our  torso.  Like  other  authors  who  wish  to  say  something  witty 
and  epigrammatic  about  a work  of  art,  Cicero  perhaps  read  rather  more  into  the 
statue  than  the  unbiassed  observer  will  find  there.  Strictly  speaking,  a limp  in  the 
gait  could  not  be  expressed  in  a figure  standing  on  both  feet  ; we  may  be  sure  that 
Alkamenes  did  not  wish,  any  more  than  the  Attic  vase-painters,  to  make  the 
god  limp,  but  he  suggested  the  characteristic  peculiarity  in  a sufficiently  true  and 
natural  manner  by  the  contrast  between  the  slender  legs  and  the  powerful  body.  The 
head,  now  lost,  no  doubt  gave  more  effect  to  this  contrast  by  its  broad,  strong  forms. 

I believe  that  the  head-type  survives  in  the  well-known  term  of  the  Vatican,  so 
eloquently  analyzed  by  Brunn.4  In  order  to  show  how  well  this  head  would  suit 
the  torso,  I have  combined  them  in  the  drawing.5  The  term  is  only  a poor,  shallow, 
and  sketchy  copy,  worked  with  a plentiful  use  of  the  drill.  Yet  in  the  rendering 
of  the  curls  of  hair,  in  the  massy  arrangement  of  the  beard,  and  in  the  large  eyes  it  is 
easy  to  recognize  the  style  of  the  later  Pheidian  epoch.  The  form  of  the  hair  rising 
on  the  forehead  is  very  like  the  Asklepios  head  of  the  same  school.6  We  need  hardly 
lay  stress  on  the  masterly  way  in  which  Alkamenes  has  individualized  the  head.7 

The  artist  shows  himself  no  less  great  in  the  creation  of  his  Ares.  The  statue 
by  Alkamenes  in  the  temple  at  Athens  is  preserved  to  us,  as  I think  we  may  now 
assume,  in  the  famous  Ares  Borghese  and  its  replicas.8  The  head  is  stylistically 

1 Cf.  the  striking  agreement  between  the  right  upper  arm  of  the  Hermes  on  the  Albani  replica  and  the  left 
upper  arm  of  the  torso.  2 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2039. 

3 Cicero’s  words  are:  Volcanum  . . . in  quo  stante  in  uiroque  vestigio  atquevestito  leviter  apparetclaudicatic 
non  deformis.  Reisch,  loc.  cit.  p.  21,  suggests  that  this  Hephaistos  was  identical  with  the  temple-image  mentioned 
Paus.  i.  14,  6,  as  standing  together  with  Athena  ; he  further  identifies  these  two  statues  with  the  two  images 
named  in  C.  /.  A.  i.  318,  319,  which  must  have  been  completed  in  421 — 420.  His  further  attempt  to  recognize  the 
Athena  in  the  distinctly  Praxitelean  Borghese  statue  (Helbig,  Museums , 935)  is  not  so  happy. 

4 Mon.  d.  Inst.  vii.  81  ; Brunn,  Gotterideale , Taf.  ii.  ; Profile,  p.  23  ; Helbig,  Museums,  89.  Loschcke  refers 
the  head  to  Alkamenes. 

5 The  head  of  the  torso  was  evidently  turned  as  it  is  in  the  term.  It  is  true  that  the  neck  of  the  term  is 
thicker  than  the  neck  of  the  torso,  to  judge  from  what  remains.  But  the  copyist  may  easily  have  increased  the 
size  of  the  neck  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  the  terminal  bust.  The  head  is  not  broken,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
term  is  antique. 

6 Cf.  especially  the  Palatine  head,  now  in  the  Terme  ; and  the  head  of  the  Naples  statue,  Roscher’s 
Lexikon,  i.  634. 

7 The  inequality  of  the  two  sides  of  the  face  (Brunn.  loc.  cit.  p.  25)  is  due  to  careless  execution. 

8 Conze  (j Beitrcige,  p.  9,  note  2)  already  inclined  to  ascribe  this  work  to  Alkamenes.  The  ring  above  the 

N 


90 


PHEIDIAS 


analogous  to  the  Hephaistos,  the  body  and  the  attitude  are  both  purely  Attic. 
The  Diskobolos  ‘ taking  up  position,’ 1 long  ago  ascribed  to  Alkamenes,  is  its  nearest 
parallel.  It  is  also  instructive  to  compare  this  Ares  with  a helmeted  and  bearded 
head,2  of  which  the  best  replica  is  the  so-called  ‘Miltiades’  in  the  Louvre,  a work 
belonging  to  the  period  of  the  Parthenos,  and  so  pronouncedly  Pheidian  in  character 
that  it  may  with  some  reason  be  ascribed  to  the  master  himself  (Plate  IV.) 

Alkamenes  thus  becomes  a personality  we  can  grasp.3  We  have  seen  what  his 
relations  to  Phcidias  were,  and  how  his  creative  instinct  asserted  itself  independently. 
None  of  the  works  referred  to  him  are  earlier  than  the  late  period  of  Pheidias — i.e. 
than  the  epoch  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  What  we  otherwise  know  about  his  life 
shows  that  his  activity  must  have  extended  to  the  close  of  the  century,  when  he 
executed  the  commission  for  Thrasybulos  (Paus.  ix.  11,  61),  about  403  B.C.,  and  made 
the  Dionysos  for  the  new  temple  beside  the  theatre  at  Athens.  According  to 
Dorpfeld’s  observations  of  the  material  used  in  the  foundations,  this  temple  must 
be  later  than  the  Periklean  buildings.4 


To  return  to  the  master  himself — for  we  have  not  yet  enumerated  all  the  works 
which  may  be  brought  into  direct  relation  with  him. 

Even  among  the  Athena  heads  there  is  one  more  which  is  not,  like  so  many  others, 
a derivative  from  the  Pheidian  types,  but  apparently  a new  creation  of  the  master’s, 
belonging  to  the  period  when  he  was  working  on  the  Parthenos.  The  magnificent 
head,  intended  to  be  inserted  into  a life-size  statue,  is  at  present  in  the  museum 
at  Brescia  (Fig.  39).5  A helmet,  presumably  of  metal,  was  placed  on  the  head, 
the  back  of  which  was  only  roughly  hewn  out ; only  the  edge  of  the  helmet  is 
indicated  just  on  the  forehead.  The  curls  escaping  from  under  the  edge  of  the 
helmet,  and  spreading  as  far  back  as  the  ears,  are  remarkably  like  those  of  the 
Parthenos,  and  are  purely  Pheidian  in  style.0  The  wavy  hair  which  falls  closely  round 
the  neck,  although  a new  feature  for  Athena,  is  most  appropriate  to  the  maiden 
goddess,  and  occurs  besides  in  two  works  of  Pheidias — the  Temie  Apollo,  and  the 
Zeus  of  Olympia.  The  profile  of  the  forehead  which  slightly  swells  out  below,  the 

right  ankle,  which  occurs  only  in  the  Borghese,  not  in  the  other  replicas,  must  have  been  added  by  the  copyist  to 
illustrate  the  favourite  story  of  Ares  bound  by  Hephaistos.  Immediately  above  the  ring  on  the  inner  side  of  the 
leg  is  a hole  (antique)  filled  with  lead.  This  probably  served  to  fasten  some  part  of  the  fetter.  The  copyist 
wished  to  represent  Ares  in  love,  a favourite  conception  of  later  times.  He  did  not  understand  that  the 
melancholy  earnestness  in  the  face  was  appropriate  to  the  god  of  war,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  love- 
stories.  1 Helbig,  Museums , 331. 

2 Cf.  p.  36,  note  1.  Replicas  of  less  importance  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  (Helbig,  488)  and  in 
Pal.  Colonna.  The  helmet  resembles  that  of  the  Parthenos ; the  beard,  that  of  the  Poseidon  on  the  Parthenon 
frieze. 

3 The  belief  in  the  existence  of  an  older  Alkamenes  is  based  on  an  old  suggestion  of  mine  (Ath.  Mitth. 
1878,  p.  194  ; cf.  Loschcke,  Westl.  Giebelgr.,  Dorpater  Progr.  1887,  p.  7).  But  the  only  testimony  which  could 
make  this  assumption  necessary — that  of  Pausanias  concerning  the  artist  of  the  west  pediment  at  Olympia — seems, 
like  the  corresponding  information  about  the  east  pediment,  to  be  a random  statement.  What  Pausanias  remarks 
in  the  same  passage  on  the  relations  of  Alkamenes  to  Pheidias  is,  as  we  saw  above  (p.  84),  nothing  but  a 
jumbled  reproduction  of  the  anecdote  respecting  the  rivalry  of  the  two  artists.  Further,  Kopp  ( Jahrb . d. 
Inst.  1890,  p.  277)  has  shown  that  the  story  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Hera  (Paus.  i.  1,  5)  by  the 
Persians  is  a mere  invention  : the  Hera  therefore  is  of  no  use  as  a date,  any  more  than  the  Helcate,  as 
we  shall  see  later  on  (Appendix). 

4 Kindly  communicated  to  me  by  Dorpfeld  ; cf.  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  276,  note.  A full  exposition  wall  be 
given  in  Dorpfeld’s  forthcoming  work  on  the  theatre.  Cf.  E.  Reisch  in  Eranos  Vindob.  1893,  p.  1.  He  dates 
the  Dionysos  on  historic  grounds,  B.c.  420 — 413. 

6 Diitschke,  Oberitalien,  vol.  iv.  No.  335  ; Labus,  Museo  Bresciano,  i.  44,  2.  Length  of  face,  o'l 7.  A 
good  copy. 

6 Diitschke,  loc.  cit.,  compares  this  to  the  Bologna  head  {i.e.  the  Lemnia). 


IV. 

Bearded  Head. 

LOUVRE.- 


i 


¥ 


t » 


. 


\ ' 


, 


. 


Fig.  39. — Head  in  Brescia.  (By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann,  Munich.) 


9- 


PHEIDIAS 


obtuse  angle  formed  by  nose  and  forehead,  the  slightly  receding  lower  part  of 
the  face,  the  formation  and  expression  of  the  full  mouth  and  even  the  elongated  ear — 
are,  as  is  evident  from  a comparison  with  facts  so  far  established,  purely  Pheidian  in 
character.  The  head  is  decidedly  later  than  the  Lemnia,  and  perhaps  even  than  the 
Hope  Athena  ; the  characteristic  part  between  upper  lid  and  eyebrow  is,  especially 
towards  the  temple,  much  softer  and  more  naturally  modelled  than  the  same  part  in 
the  Hope  Athena:  if  the  copies  are  trustworthy  in  this  point.it  follows  that  the 
Brescia  head  is  the  more  recent  of  the  two.  The  whole  expression  bears  out  this 
view.  The  quiet  repose  and  restraint  to  be  observed  in  the  Lemnia  and  the  Hope 
Athena  arc  lacking  here.  The  carriage  of  the  head  is  freer  and  bolder,  the  face  shows 
the  power  and  full  proportions  which  apparently  were  characteristics  of  the  Parthenos. 

In  this  series  may  be  further  placed  a beautiful  head  of  a youth  with  a helmet, 
known  from  two  copies  in  the  Louvre  (Fig.  40) 1 and  the  Museo  Torlonia  respectively.2 
In  the  latter  replica  the  frontlet  is  adorned  with  a design  in  relief  of  a little  Eros 
surrounded  by  sprays.  This,  although  of  course  an  addition  of  the  copyist,  enables 
us  to  determine  the  original  meaning  of  the  head.  It  must  represent  Ares,  for  Ares 
in  love  was  a favourite  theme  of  later  artists  ; the  copyist’s  addition  here  is  to  be 
explained  much  in  the  same  way  as  the  fetters  on  the  Ares  Borghese  (p.  89,  note  8). 
The  cars,  swollen  as  from  the  boxing  contest  (especially  clear  in  the  Torlonia  copy), 
are  quite  appropriate  to  the  war  god.  I know  no  other  copies  of  the  head,  and  no 
torso  which  could  belong  to  it.  A helmeted  head  in  the  Lateran,3  placed  on  a statue 
that  does  not  belong  to  it,4  is  closely  analogous  to  the  Louvre  head  ; but  it  is  only  a 
variant,  and  not  a replica.5 

A colossal  Ares  statue  in  the  second  cortile  of  the  Palazzo  Borghese  is  another 
interesting  work  (Fig.  41  ).6  The  head,  which  has  never  been  broken,  shows  many 
points  of  similarity  with  our  Paris  type,  though  it  is  not  a replica.  It  is  turned 
more  decidedly  to  the  left,  the  edge  of  the  helmet  on  the  forehead  is  different,  and 
the  hair,  notwithstanding  a general  resemblance,  varies  in  detail  ; finally,  slight 
whiskers  have  been  added  similar  to  those  worn  by  the  Ares  Borghese  of  the  Louvre. 
The  motive  of  the  statue  is  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  Munich  Diomede,  a work  to 
be  assigned,  as  we  shall  try  to  show  later,  to  Kresilas.  The  right  hand  is  lowered,  and 
doubtless  held  the  sword,  while  the  empty  scabbard  is  suspended  on  the  left  side  ; the 
left  hand  probably  held  a spear.  The  chlamys  falls  from  the  shoulder  in  perfectly 
simple  folds. 

1 Louvre,  No.  2986,  in  the  same  room  as  the  Ares  Borghese.  Thasian  marble.  First  discussed  by  Treu, 
Arch.  Anz.  1889,  57.  He  referred  it  to  Tolykleitos.  I subsequently  thought  of  Kresilas  ( Arch . Anz.  1891,  36). 
Restored  in  plaster : nose,  left  upper  lip,  most  of  left  eyebrow,  and  left  upper  eyelid. 

2 Museo  Torlonia , Tav.  26,  No.  104.  Galleria  Giustiniani,  ii.  45  (here  the  Eros  in  front  is  wrongly  drawn 
as  a sphinx  ; on  the  helmet  appear  the  antique  remains  of  an  animal  couchant  to  serve  as  plume-bearer  ; in  the 
Museo  Torlonia  the  figure  has  been  restored).  The  nose  and  chin  are  restored.  The  points  of  hair  over  the 
forehead  are  broken  away. 

3 Helbig,  Museums,  638. 

4 Also  observed  by  Overbeck,  Ber.  d.  Sachs.  Ges.  1861,  p.  80.  A replica  of  this  torso  in  Lansdowne  House 
(Michaelis,  p.  453,  n.  63)  preserves  the  original  head,  which  is  that  of  Marcus  Aurelius.  From  the  workmanship, 
which  belongs  approximately  to  the  period  of  this  Emperor,  it  is  probable  that  the  Lateran  statue  also  represented 
Marcus  Aurelius. 

8 As  Treu  had  pronounced  it  to  be,  loc.  cit. 

8 Matz-Duhn,  Zerslr.  Bildw.  No.  1338.  The  figure  is  much  defaced,  owing  to  exposure  ; the  head  was  never 
broken.  Restored  : nose  and  chin  (lips  formerly),  right  arm,  the  left  hand,  and  the  lower  part  of  the  body.  The 
latter  was  probably  made  to  replace  a still  existing  but  battered  original.  This  seems  evident  from  the  complete 
correspondence  in  style,  and  from  the  fact  that  a piece  of  unbroken  drapery  belonging  to  the  antique  upper  part 
of  the  torso  hangs  down  below  the  join,  which  would  hardly  be  possible  if  the  whole  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
body  had  not  been  originally  preserved. 


Fig.  40. — Head  of  Ares,  Louvre.  (From  a photograph  by  A Giraudon.) 


94 


PHEIDIAS 


We  possess,  then,  three  variants  of  the  same  type  : (a)  the  variant  represented  by 
the  Paris  and  Torlonia  heads,  body  unknown  ; (b)  the  Lateran  variant,  body  unknown  ; 
(c)  the  variant  in  the  cortile  Borghese,  of  which  both  head  and  torso  are  preserved.1 
I do  not  think  that  these  variants  are  merely  due  to  the  copyists.  The  Borghese 
statue  and  the  Paris  head  give  the  impression  of  being  essentially  faithful  copies 
from  fifth-century  originals.  Of  these  originals  we  may  suppose  that  one  was  a new 
creation  by  a distinguished  artist,  and  the  others  more  or  less  dependent  conceptions 


Fig.  41. — Ares  in  the  Pal.  Borghese  (Rome). 


by  inferior  artists  of  the  same  period.  Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  of  the  three 
variants  the  Paris  head  has  the  best  claim  to  represent  the  original  creation.  It  is 
analogous  to  the  Parthenos,  and  must  be  a product  of  the  circle  of  Pheidias.  The  curls 
are  bunched  out  in  front  of  the  ears  and  partly  cover  the  edge  of  the  helmet,  in  a 
manner  marvellously  similar  to  that  shown  in  the  Parthenos  and  in  the  Brescia  head 

1 The  head  of  the  so-called  ‘Theseus’  at  Ince  Blundell  Hall  (Michaelis,  p.  351,  No.  43  ; Arch.  Ztg.  1874, 
Taf.  1)  may  be  a fourth  variant.  I have  not  seen  the  original,  but  Michaelis  doubts  whether  the  head  belongs  to 
the  body  ; or  the  latter,  cf.  infra , p.  359,  n.  3. 


THE  DIOSCURI  OF  MONTE  CAVALLO 


95 


discussed  above.  The  ‘ Aphrodite  ’ (p.  68)  and  the  Anakreon  should  also  be  compared. 
The  treatment  of  detail  is  somewhat  freer  than  in  the  other  works  ; the  Ares  must 
at  any  rate  be  later  than  the  Parthcnos.  The  helmet  is  another  point  of  likeness  : 
like  that  of  the  Parthcnos,  it  has  three  plumes,  the  middle  one  supported  by  a 
sphinx,1  and  turned  up  cheek-pieces  decorated  with  griffins  rampant.2  I can  see 
nothing  to  prevent  our  attributing  the  original  to  Phcidias  himself.  Individuality 
manifests  itself  specially  in  the  lower  part  of  the  face  ; the  distance  between  nose  and 
mouth  is  rather  longer  than  usual,  and  the  lower  lip  recedes  ; the  mouth  is  close, 
the  chin  firm,  the  forehead  broad  and  powerful.  The  head  is  held  upright  with  an 
easy  turn  to  the  right.  It  conveys  an  impression  of  youthful  defiance  and  brave 
resolution,  of  passion  latent  in  sensuous  beauty.  And  these  are  traits  eminently 
characteristic  of  Ares. 

The  Ares  Borghese  of  the  Louvre,  which  we  have  attributed  to  Alkamenes  and 
compared  to  a bearded  and  helmeted  Pheidian  head  (Plate  IV.),  should  now  be 
compared  with  this  Pheidian  Ares  : it  is  clear  that  the  system  of  form  common  to 
the  Parthenos  and  to  the  Pheidian  Ares  is  very  different  from  that  affected  by  the 
younger  artist.  Starting  from  the  same  principles,  the  later  work  has  developed 
and  emphasized  the  older  conception,  and  brought  in  new  elements.  The  Ares  of 
Alkamenes  seems  restless  and  excited  beside  the  other,  and  more  stress  is  laid 
on  the  gloomy  wildness  of  the  god’s  personality  : instead  of  the  carefully  dressed 
curls  which  belong  to  the  style  of  the  Parthenos,  the  hair  hangs  straitly,  giving  an 
effect  of  neglect  and  carelessness  intended  perhaps  to  indicate  the  Thracian  origin  of 
the  god. 

X.  The  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo , and  the  Elder  Praxiteles. 

We  have  kept  for  the  end  a magnificent  creation  of  Pheidias  belonging  to  the 
last  period  of  his  activity.  Not  only  is  this  work  easily  recognizable  from  the  style, 
but  it  has  the  additional  advantage  of  being  authenticated  by  an  inscription.  I refer 
to  one  of  the  two  colossal  figures  on  the  Monte  Cavallo  in  Rome — to  the  one  holding 
the  horse  with  the  right  hand,  whose  basis  bore  till  1589  the  antique  inscription  3 
opus  Fidiae. 

Strangely  enough,  this  work  has  been  so  misunderstood  that  even  at  the  present 
day  people  are  astonished  if  it  is  ascribed  to  the  artist  whose  name  is  attested  by  the 
inscription. 

This  inscription  is  of  a kind  of  which  there  are  many  examples  in  Rome.  They 
are  preserved  on  the  bases  of  statues,  but  the  statues  themselves  are  lost.  These 
works,  designated  as  opus  Polycliti , opus  Bryaxidis , opus  Praxitelis , opus  Tisicratis, 
opus  Timarchi ,4  were,  as  no  one  disputes,  either  originals  by  the  artists  named,  set 
up  again  in  Rome,  or  copies  from  these  originals.  The  similar  inscription  AvalTnrov 
epyov  on  a copy  is  definite  evidence  for  the  last  case,5  sometimes  the  formula  6 Selva 

1 Cf.  p.  92,  note  2. 

2 The  legs  of  the  griffin  are  still  to  be  seen  on  the  Louvre  head.  The  cheek-pieces  of  the  Borghese  head  are 
ornamented  in  the  same  way. 

1 It  is  well  known  that  when  the  Colossi  were  set  up  again  in  the  year  1589  the  two  artists’  inscriptions 
were  not  only  renewed  but  reversed.  The  antique  inscriptions  designated  the  figure  holding  the  horse  with 
his  right  hand  as  the  work  of  Pheidias,  the  one  holding  the  horse  with  his  left  hand  as  the  work  of  Praxiteles. 
We  keep  exclusively  to  the  antique  designations. 

1 Cf.  Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  489  seq. 

5 Lowy,  506  ; for  the  genuineness  cf.  Hermes , vol.  xxii.  153. 


' 


THE  DIOSCURI  OF  MONTE  CAVALLO 


97 


they  arc  more  drily  rendered,  ‘ mehr  schulgerecht,’  as  Wagner  expressed  it.  But 
the  same  laws  of  style  are  obeyed.  The  different  parts  of  the  body  are  marked 
off  in  large  distinct  planes — in  direct  contrast  to  the  rounded  modelling  and  fine 
transitions  of  fourth-century  technique,  which  reached  their  highest  development 
under  the  influence  of  Lysippos.  The  structure  of  the  mighty  chest  is  specially 
characteristic.  In  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon,  even  in  those  of  freer  style,  the 
chest  is  less  developed  than  in  the  figures  of  the  frieze  and  pediments,  to  which 
the  Colossi  correspond.  Further,  the  manner  in  which  the  edge  of  the  ribs  projects, 
and  the  modulation  of  the  abdominal  muscles  (cf.  especially  the  deep  depression 
between  the  straight  and  oblique  muscles,  and  the  inscriptiones  of  the  former), 
are  precisely  the  same  on  the  Colossi  and  the  torsos  M and  H of  the  west  and 
H of  the  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon.1  The  evidence  of  the  heads  is  equally 

plain  (Fig.  42).  In  this  respect  also  the  youths  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  afford  the 

nearest  analogy — the  heads  turned  to  the  front  and  wearing  a slightly  excited 
expression,  such  as  No.  2 of  the  west  frieze  (PI.  V.),  are  surprisingly  like  the  Colossi. 

For  the  profile,  No.  118  of  the  north  frieze  should  be  compared.  The  shape  and 

modulation  of  the  forehead,  the  sharp  edge  of  the  eyebrows,  the  wide-open  eyes,  the 
complete  absence  of  all  those  natural  forms  which  art  after  Praxiteles  and  Lysippos  gave 
to  the  parts  around  the  lower  eyelid  both  in  the  region  of  the  nose  and  of  the  temples,2 
the  formation  of  the  mouth  and  chin,  the  characteristic  wavy  lines  of  the  hair  which 
frames  the  face  as  with  a crown  of  rays,  even  the  way  the  fillet  cuts  in  and  the 
hair  rises  on  either  side  of  it — all  this  is  as  genuinely  Pheidian,  and  of  the  Parthenon 
period,  as  it  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  style  of  Lysippos.  Each  one  of  the 
forms  analyzed  would  be  strong  proof  by  itself ; taken  all  together,  they  remove  all 
possibility  of  doubt.  Only  the  difference  in  size,  and  the  fact  that  the  Parthenon 
frieze  is  original  work  while  the  Colossi  are  copies  from  bronze,  make  some  variations 
inevitable  ; in  artistic  essence  and  individual  style  they  are  the  same. 

Again,  it  is  striking  how  nearly  the  horses  of  the  Colossi  correspond  with  those  of 
the  Parthenon  frieze,  and  how  widely  they  differ  from  those  of  later  art — compare, 
for  instance,  the  sculptures  of  the  Mausoleum  and  the  basis  of  Bryaxis,3  or,  as  a stronger 
contrast  still,  the  horses  on  the  Pergamene  reliefs.  In  the  proportions  of  the  bodies, 
in  the  relation  in  size  to  the  human  figures,  in  the  details  of  form — especially  in  the 
head — in  the  shape  of  the  eyes,  the  jaw,  the  nostrils,  and  particularly  of  the  lower  half 
of  the  mouth — these  horses  of  the  Colossi  resemble  those  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  and 
pediments,  except  that  they  lack  the  fire  and  spirit  of  the  originals.  I say  nothing 
of  the  armour  and  drapery.  It  has  long  been  acknowledged  that  the  coat  of  mail  is 
an  addition  of  the  copyist,  who  wanted  a marble  support  for  the  outstretched  leg 
of  the  figure.  The  piece  of  drapery  hanging  from  the  arms,  which  is  evidently  meant 
to  serve  the  same  purpose,  is  most  likely  another  addition  of  the  copyist.4  It  is  not 
worked  as  clearly  and  definitely  as  the  other  parts  of  the  figure. 

1 Even  the  pubes  is  characteristic,  and  quite  different  from  the  Lysippian. 

2 Precisely  those  peculiarities  which  Hugo  Magnus  (Die  Darstellung  ties  Auges  in  der  Antiken  Plastik,  1892) 
dwells  on  are  quite  decisive  in  favour  of  assigning  the  works  to  the  Pheidian  epoch.  They  consist  in  the 
extremely  sharp  arch  of  the  eyebrow  and  of  the  upper  rim  of  the  eye-socket,  in  the  modelling  of  the  space 
between  that  upper  rim  and  the  upper  eyelid,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  indication  of  the  lower  rim  of  the  eye- 
socket.  It  is  strange  after  this  accurate  analysis  that  Magnus  (p.  76)  should  separate  the  figures  of  Monte 
Cavallo  from  the  Pheidian  epoch  : he  was  misled  by  the  deep  hollowing  out  of  the  iris  and  the  pupil ; but  this  is  a 
most  unessential  detail ; the  copyist  added  it  because  in  such  a colossal  work  he  could  not  rely  on  the  effect  of  a 
merely  painted  eye-pupil  (cf.  Conze,  Sitzungsber.  Berl.  Akademie,  1892,  Febr. , p.  49  seq. ) ; the  bronze  originals 
had  of  course  inserted  eyes. 

3 Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  1892,  PI.  3,  7. 


4 Cf.  p.  56,  note  1. 

O 


Fig.  42. — The  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo.  (From  the  cast.) 


THE  ELDER  PRAXITELES 


99 


Finally,  the  motive  of  the  youths  with  their  horses  and  the  rhythm  of  their 
movement  are  special  to  the  Parthenon  and  its  artistic  circle.  It  has  long  been 
noticed  that  one  group,  the  youth  leading  the  horse  with  his  right  hand,  reappears 
in  very  similar  form  on  the  west  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  (No.  27). 1 And  the 
same  figure — the  one  designated  by  the  old  inscription  as  the  work  of  Pheidias — 
occurs  again  in  all  its  essential  features  on  another  authenticated  work  of  Pheidias, 
the  relief  on  the  basis  of  the  Athena  Parthenos.2  The  only  distinction  is  that  the 
youth  on  the  basis  leads  with  his  right  hand  not  one  horse  but  a team  of  four.  The 
horses  are  rearing  in  both  instances.  If  then  it  be  admitted  that  Pheidias  used 
the  ‘horse-taming’  motive,  the  question  next  arises  whether  it  was  his  own  inven- 
tion or  borrowed  from  another  artist.  All  the  evidence  seems  to  be  in  favour 
of  the  former  view.  The  motive  in  its  principal  features — a broad  swinging  stride  to 
the  right,  the  head  thrown  well  to  the  left,  one  arm  (usually)  raised,  the  other  bent 
at  an  angle — enters  Greek  art  as  a complete  idea,  and  from  the  time  of  its  entrance 
becomes  a common  property  to  be  employed  over  and  over  again.  It  is  quite  unknown 
before  the  time  of  the  Parthenos.  It  first  appears  in  that  free  and  animated  style 
which  we  have  learned  to  recognize  as  the  style  of  Pheidias  in  his  Parthenos  epoch 
(cf.  p.  44  seq .)  Among  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon  this  ‘ horse-taming’  motive  is  met 
with  only  in  a few  of  the  freest  examples  ;3  on  the  ‘ Theseion  ’ it  appears  only  in  the 
frieze  4 (which  is  similar  in  style  to  the  more  advanced  metopes  of  the  Parthenon),  and 
not  in  the  metopes  at  all  ; it  is  represented  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthenos  as  well  as  on 
the  basis,  it  is  quite  familiar  on  Parthenon  frieze  and  pediments,  and  in  all  works  nearly 
related  to  the  style  of  these  sculptures,  such  as  the  reliefs  of  Phigaleia,  a certain  series 
of  Attic  vases,  etc.5  We  may,  then,  assume  that  Pheidias,  if  not  actually  the  inventor 
of  the  motive,  is  principally  responsible  for  its  adoption  into  Attic  art. 

Formal  analysis  has  taught  us  that  the  Colossi  of  Monte  Cavallo,  irrespective  of 
their  inscriptions,  must  be  referred  to  originals  from  the  epoch  of  the  Parthenon  frieze 
and  from  the  circle  of  Pheidias.  This  being  so,  we  have  no  grounds  for  doubting  the 
correctness  of  the  traditional  inscriptions,  which  give  us  the  artists’  names  : Pheidias 
and  Praxiteles. 

This  Praxiteles  is  no  longer  unknown.  He  is  of  course  identical  with  the  artist 
of  the  Promachos  (p.  32).  This  statue,  we  saw,  was  a work  closely  connected  with 
Pheidias,  perhaps  partly  invented  by  him,  and  we  drew  thence  the  conclusion  that 
Praxiteles  was  an  intimate  colleague  of  Pheidias.  This  accords  admirably  with  the 
facts  gathered  from  a study  of  the  Colossi  of  Monte  Cavallo  and  the  inscriptions. 
The  two  figures  are  conceived  in  the  same  spirit,  and  there  must  have  been  a strong 
bond  between  the  two  artists.  Such  collaboration  and  division  of  labour  were  common 
enough  in  antiquity  in  the  case  of  larger  commissions  involving  several  figures.6  It 
was  a great  mistake  to  imagine  that  the  two  different  artists’  names  inscribed  on  the 
Colossi  could  not  possibly  both  be  correct.  Yet  if  a work  of  this  kind  is  to  have  any 
general  uniformity  of  character,  the  root-idea  must  be  the  invention  of  one  mind.  In 
the  present  case  we  surely  cannot  be  wrong  in  ascribing  this  root-idea  to  Pheidias, 
though  in  the  working  out  of  it  and  in  the  execution  of  the  details  each  of  the 
artists  concerned  would  become  alone  responsible. 

1 Cf.  also  north  frieze  No.  58,  and  the  Hermes  on  the  Echelos  relief,  ’Erprj/x.  dpx . 1893,  TIlv.  9. 

2 In  the  portion  given  by  the  Lenormant  statuette.  Cf.  supra,  p.  45. 

3 South  xiv.  xvi.,  East  ix.  4 Cf.  Overbeck,  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  348,  Fig.  5. 

5 Those  named  on  pp.  44,  45. 

6 For  instances  corroborated  by  inscriptions  see  Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  p.  xv.  In  addition  to  these  we  have  the 
examples  handed  down  by  literature. 


IOO 


PHEIDIAS 


In  spite  of  the  great  similarity  between  the  two  figures  and  the  disappearance  in 
the  copies  of  many  an  individual  and  distinctive  trait  which  no  doubt  existed 
in  the  originals,  we  can  still  detect  differences  in  the  artists.  The  work  of 
Praxiteles — the  youth  holding  the  horse  with  his  right  hand  and  turning  his  head 
to  the  left — shows  more  stress  and  fire  in  the  attitude.  This  difference  comes 
out  most  clearly  in  the  heads  (Fig.  42,  1,  Praxiteles  ; 2 and  2 a , Pheidias).  The 
head  by  Praxiteles  has  a more  passionate,  free,  and  enthusiastic  expression,  and  on 
this  account  has  been  generally  preferred  to  the  other.1  This  is  just  the  distinction 
which  we  found  to  subsist  between  the  Promachos  and  the  works  of  Pheidias  : in  the 
Promachos,  too,  we  found  a mood  of  greater  excitement  expressed  by  a more  restless 
and  animated  exterior.  We  could  however  assert  this  only  of  the  body,  for  the  head 
of  the  Medici  torso  is  lost. 

Yet  the  head  of  the  Promachos,  the  work  of  Praxiteles,  seems  to  have  been  pre- 
served in  one  copy.  This  is  a colossal  head  of  the  Jacobsen  collection  in  Copenhagen 
(Fig.  43).  We  saw  that  the  Promachos  held  her  head  turned  to  the  right,  and  showed 
in  her  whole  attitude  defiant  warlike  excitement.  The  Copenhagen  head  corresponds 
admirably  to  such  a conception,  and  I think  everyone  must  be  struck  by  the  similarity 
in  style  to  the  heads  of  the  Dioscuri,  especially  to  the  one  by  Praxiteles.  The  vigor- 
ous movement,  the  expression,  the  forms  of  the  individual  features,  more  particularly 
of  the  open  mouth  and  the  chin,  are  wonderfully  like.  The  angle  formed  by  forehead 
and  nose  is  rather  more  marked  in  the  Athena,  thus  pointing  to  a slightly  earlier  date. 
The  hair  springs  out  in  full  masses  in  front  of  the  ears,  and  recalls  the  Lemnia  rather 
than  the  Parthenos.2 

If  we  imagine  the  Medici  torso  completed  by  this  head  3 or  one  of  its  replicas, 
and  the  arms  restored  with  lifted  shield  and  lance  held  ready  for  the  fray,  we  have  a 
majestic  and  moving  image  of  the  war  goddess  gazing  in  joy  of  conflict  and  assurance 
of  victory  from  her  citadel  away  across  city  and  country  towards  the  quarter  whence 
her  worst  enemies  threaten — whence  a few  decades  later  was  to  come  the  power  which 
crushed  and  overthrew  her  proud  supremacy. 

The  originals  of  the  Monte  Cavallo  Colossi  can  hardly  have  stood  in  Athens.  They 
represented,  there  is  little  doubt,  the  Dioscuri.4  Hence  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Colossi  were  set  up  in  some  city  specially  devoted  to  the  cultus  of  the  Dioscuri,  where 


1 Cf.  Friederichs,  Baasteine,  p.  128  (—  Wolters,  p.  456),  where  the  names  have  changed  places  according  to 

the  modern  mistake. 

3 The  copyist  has  used  the  borer  freely,  and  apparently  not  understood  his  original.  The  work  recalls  the 
Parthenos  copy  in  Berlin,  Ant.  Denkm.  i.  3.  On  lips  and  nostrils  and  on  the  frontlet  of  the  helmet  are  traces  of 
red  colour.  The  back  and  the  upper  part  of  the  head  are  made  of  separate  pieces.  Holes  in  the  ears  for 
earrings.  The  teeth  are  indicated,  the  lower  edge  of  the  frontlet  is  broken,  it  originally  ran  downwards  in  a 
point,  as  in  the  Parthenos. 

3 The  face  of  the  Jacobsen  head  is  31  cm.  long.  This  would  agree  approximately  with  the  dimensions 
required  by  the  proportions  of  the  Medici  torso.  There  is  a curious  similarity  between  the  shape  and  size  of  the 
hollow  intended  to  receive  the  head  on  the  torso  Medici  and  the  portion  of  bust  which  is  prepared  for  insertion 
in  the  Jacobsen  head.  Both  form  an  ellipse  narrowing  into  a point  in  front  ; on  the  torso  the  length  is  40 — 41 
cm.,  its  breadth  32  cm.  ; on  the  head  length  and  breadth  are  43  cm.  and  24  cm.  respectively.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  the  head  does  not  belong  to  the  torso  Medici,  but  to  a replica  of  it  with  a similar  hollow  for 
the  head. 

4 The  coin  of  Maxentius  quoted  by  Donali  shows,  it  is  true,  the  Dioscuri  standing  quietly  and  the  horses 
rearing.  But  the  Dioscuri  are  represented  in  the  motive  of  the  Monte  Cavallo  group— on  a sarcophagus  now 
in  the  Museo  clelle  Terrne  (in  the  centre  a married  couple,  on  each  side  a Dioscurus  with  his  horse  in  the 
Monte  Cavallo  motive,  but  with  the  addition  of  pileus,  chlamys,  and  sword ; workmanship  of  the  third 
or  fourth  century  A.D. ) The  fact  that  the  Colossi  do  not  wear  the  pointed  cap  does  not  tell  against  the 
interpretation,  as  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  century  B.c.  this  attribute  was  not  yet  given  to  them.  (Cf.  Roscher’s 
Lex.  i.  1172.) 


Fig.  43. — Head  in  the  Jacobsen  collection  at  Copenhagen.  (By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann,  Munich.) 


102 


PHEIDIAS 


a huge  votive  gift  of  the  kind  would  be  appropriate.  Such  a city  was  Tarentum,1 
where  bronze  Colossi  were  in  great  favour,  and  whence  the  originals  could  easily 
have  been  removed  to  Rome.  The  copies  are  adapted  as  decoration  for  a gate, 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  originals  served  the  same  purpose.  Nor  is  the  sym- 
metry of  the  composition  a proof  of  decorative  intention.  In  ancient  art,  from  the 
earliest  to  the  latest  times,  symmetry  was  a necessary  factor  in  the  typology  of  the 
Divine  Twins.  The  one  is  always  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  other.  Originally 
the  horses  would  be  placed  not  at  a right  but  at  an  obtuse  angle  to  the  figures, 
according  to  the  more  natural  arrangement.  Since  the  publication  of  Wagner’s 
penetrating  remarks  on  the  subject  it  is  generally  and  rightly  assumed  that  the 
originals  were  of  bronze,  and  if  so  they  were  probably  not  decorative,  but  intended 
to  stand  free. 

The  Dioscuri  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  The  Promachos, 
which  we  assigned  to  the  years  between  445  and  440,  is  therefore  a somewhat  older 
work  of  Praxiteles  than  the  Dioscuri — a conclusion  which  we  reached  independently 
from  a study  of  the  style. 

It  remains  to  find  out  whether  anything  more  is  known  about  this  Praxiteles. 
He  is  of  course  the  elder  Praxiteles,  long  acknowledged  as  a person  distinct  from 
his  younger  namesake.2  However,  since  all  conjectures  concerning  this  artist 
have  hitherto  been  of  extreme  vagueness,  it  will  be  best  to  sum  up  what  is  really 
known,  rejecting  what  is  false  or  untenable.  First  of  all  we  have  the  notice  in 
Pausanias  (i.  2,  4)  about  the  ypdfifMara  uttiku  on  the  group  of  Demeter,  Kore, 
and  Iakchos,  but  this  only  gives  us  a general  date  before  the  time  of  Eukleides. 
More  definite  information  is  supplied  by  the  statement  that  the  temple  image  of 
Hera  at  Plataia  was  by  Praxiteles,  for  the  splendid  large  temple  to  which  this 
aya\fui  fieya  belonged  was  built  in  427 — 426  (Thuc.  iii.  68).  This  would  roughly  give 
us  the  period  from  B.C.  445  to  425  for  the  activity  of  the  elder  Praxiteles,  who  accord- 
ingly would  be  a somewhat  younger  contemporary  of  Pheidias,  and  would  be  still  at 
work  in  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  War.3  His  works  themselves  have  shown  us 
that  his  connexion  with  Pheidias  was  a close  one  ; Pheidias  must  have  held  him  in 
high  esteem,  and  probably  obtained  for  him  the  commission  to  make  the  Promachos. 
Very  soon  afterwards  the  two  artists  in  collaboration  made  the  group  of  the  Dioscuri. 
No  doubt  the  commission  was  intrusted  to  Pheidias,  and  he  is  responsible  for  the 
original  design,  but  Praxiteles  brings  his  individuality  strongly  to  light  in  the  figure 
which  bears  his  name.  Although  standing  in  the  shadow  of  one  greater  than  himself, 
his  own  significance  and  importance  cannot  be  concealed. 

The  idea  we  have  formed  of  the  work  produced  by  the  elder  Praxiteles  is  well 
illustrated  by  an  interesting  head  (Fig.  44),  of  which  there  are  two  replicas,4  representing 

1 The  cultus  of  the  Dioscuri  at  Tarentum  is  proved  by  numerous  coins  and  terra-cottas  ; it  was  derived 
from  Laconia. 

2 Cf.  Klein,  Oesterr.  Mitth.  1879,  8 ; Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzber.  1880,  443  ; Kroker,  Gleichnamige  Kilns  tier,  44  ; 
U.  Kohler,  Ath.  Mitth.  ix.  7S  ; Robert,  Arch.  Marchen,  62,  156. 

3 The  Artemis  on  a kylix  of  about  480  cannot,  as  Robert,  Arch.  March,  p.  156,  assumes,  be  referred  to  the 
Brauronia.  I consider  Studniczka’s  hypothesis  about  the  latter  very  probable  (cf.  infra  on  Praxiteles,  p.  323). 
The  head  called  ‘Iakchos’  by  Winter  (Bonner  Studien  ; cf.  supra,  p.  55)  is  too  severe  for  our  Praxiteles.  If 
Praxiteles  worked  with  Kalamis  (Pliny,  xxxiv.  71),  it  could  only  have  been  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  Kalamis, 
and  this  does  not  justify  the  supposition  that  the  style  of  Praxiteles  was  severe. 

4 (a)  Fig.  44  ; in  the  Louvre,  No.  2547,  from  the  Coll.  Campana  ; d’Escamps,  Marbres  Campana,  PI.  63.  The 
whole  neck  with  the  term,  the  lower  part  of  the  curls,  the  nose,  the  upper  lip,  and  the  back  of  the  head  are 
restored.  (6)  Vatican,  Mus.  Chiar.  145  ; Visconti,  A/us.  Chiar.  i.  10;  Muller- Wieseler,  Denkm.  ii.  119  ; Overbeck, 
Apollo,  p.  1 18  ; Helbig,  Museums,  No.  72.  Poor  late  work.  Brows  and  pupils  plastic.  Fillet  in  the  hair  (not  in  a). 


THE  ELDER  PRAXITELES 


103 


a delicate  youth  with  rich  curls  falling  over  his  forehead  and  down  over  his  neck. 
The  Pheidian  manner  is  evident  in  the  stylistic  treatment  of  hair  and  face,  particularly 
in  the  eyes  and  mouth.  But  a slight  hint  of  inward  excitement,  the  mouth  open  as  if 
to  ask  an  impatient  question,  and  the  intentional  asymmetria  of  the  hair  over  the 
forehead,  are  signs  of  the  artistic  tendency  we  have  already  traced  in  Praxiteles. 
Moveover,  the  type  of  head  is  remarkably  like  the  Eubouleus  of  the  younger  Praxi- 
teles (Plate  XVI.)1 — so  like  that  there  must  be  a bond  of  some  kind  between  the  two 
productions.  The  essential  features  are  the  same,  but  they  are  worked  out  in  the 
one  instance  according  to  Pheidian  tradition,  in  the  other  after  the  manner  of  later 
Praxitelean  art.  It  is  very  instructive  to  notice  how  the  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the 


Fig.  44. — Head  in  the  Louvre. 


forms  of  two  widely  different  epochs.  The  hair  lies  in  the  same  general  scheme  of 
arrangement,  but  the  style  of  rendering  is  not  the  same.  Forehead  and  eyes  differ  ; 
only  in  one  detail  the  older  head — if  we  may  trust  the  Louvre  copy — oversteps  the 
Pheidian  circle  and  touches  on  the  newer  formation — i.e.  the  lower  eyelid  is  more 
definitely  set  off  from  the  cheek,  through  the  indication  of  the  lower  rim  of  the  eye- 
socket,  a nicety  of  modelling  not  customary  in  the  fifth  century. 

As  the  ‘ Eubouleus  ’ of  the  great  Praxiteles  certainly  represents  an  Eleusinian 
divinity,  the  interpretation  of  the  earlier  head  must  be  sought  for  within  the  same 

1 The  head  in  the  Louvre  is  therefore  also  called  Virgil,  like  the  replicas  of  the  Eubouleus  in  Rome  and 
Mantua.  Both  the  Louvre  head  and  a head  in  the  Villa  Albani  (No.  48,  ‘Alessandro’),  which  I also  attribute 
to  the  elder  Praxiteles,  have  already  been  touched  upon  in  connexion  with  the  ‘ Eubouleus  ’ by  Benndorf  in  the 
Anzeiger  d.  Wiener  Akad.  1887,  16th  Nov. 


104 


I'H  El  DIAS 


mythological  circle.  It  is  probably  a copy  of  the  Iakchos  of  the  elder  Praxiteles. 
The  delicate  face  framed  in  curls  would  answer  admirably  to  the  iopalos  Oeus 

(Aristoph.  Frogs,  395)  who  stood  as  torch- 
bearer  beside  Demeter  and  Kore.1  The  ele- 
vated beauty  of  this  head  accounts  for  its 
great  popularity  in  Athens  (Cic.  in  Verr.  iv. 
60,  135). 

P'irst  among  other  surviving  works  be- 
longing to  the  same  series  of  Pheidian  works 
as  the  Monte  Cavallo  horsemen  may  be  placed 
the  fragment  of  a colossal  statue,  the  ‘ Jupiter 
de  Versailles  ’ in  the  Louvre  (Fig.  45 ).2  The 
head  is  near  akin  to  the  Dioscuri,  the  strong 
undulating  hair,  the  form  of  the  forehead,  the 
large  eyes,  and  the  open  mouth  being  unmis- 
takable evidences  ; even  the  hair  on  the  upper 
part  of  the  head  and  on  the  neck  behind 
shows  correspondence.  The  short  curled  beard, 
on  the  other  hand,  recalls  the  earlier  Pheidian 
manner  as  exemplified  in  the  Barberini  head 
(Fig.  12).  The  majesty  and  energy  of  the 
whole  conception  have  no  parallel  except  in 
the  Dioscuri.  Unfortunately  only  the  upper 
part  of  the  body  survives.  A mantle  passes 
behind  from  the  right  hip  to  the  left  shoulder, 
the  right  arm  was  stretched  forward.  The  short  hair  and  the  excited  expression 
seem  to  me  less  appropriate  to  Zeus  than  to  Poseidon.  It  is  possible  that  this 
statue  also  may  have  its  source  in  a work  of  the  elder  Praxiteles.3  At  any  rate 
it  must  have  proceded  from  the  school  of  Pheidias.  I may  mention  in  conclusion 
a female  type  with  waving,  fluttering  hair  and  open  mouth,  known  in  different 
variants,  and  representing  a goddess  of  animated  nature.4 


Fig.  45. — ‘Jupiter  de  Versailles  ’ (Louvre). 


XI.  Pheidian  Influences  in  Sicily  and  Magna  Graecia. — Coins  and  Vases. 

It  is  not,  however,  my  intention  to  write  an  exhaustive  treatise  on  the  works  of 
the  Pheidian  school  ; I only  aim  at  tracing  a ground-plan  for  future  investigation.  I 
believe  we  have  found  in  the  Lemnia  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  the  Dioscuri  on  the 
other,  two  fixed  points  which  represent  the  opposite  poles  of  Pheidian  art  : here  calm 
repose,  there  impetuous  motion  ; here  manifold  threads  of  connexion  with  old  forms, 
there  the  full  freedom  of  the  new  style. 

1 This  Iakchos  was  certainly  not  represented  with  horns.  The  fiouKepoos  ’Tax xos  (Sophokles,  frag.  871, 
Nauck)  is  not  the  Iacchos  of  Attic  cultus,  but  only  a poetic  name  for  Dionysos  : it  is  expressly  stated  that  he 
dwells  on  Nysa,  which  is  true  of  the  bull-Dionysos,  but  not  of  the  Attic  Iacchos.  The  poetic  blending  of  Iakchos 
with  Dionysos,  which  occurs  from  Sophokles  downwards  (cf.  especially  Antig.  1 1 1 5 seq. ),  does  not  prove  that 
the  mingling  had  taken  place  in  Attic  cultus  and  art  of  the  fifth  century. 

2 Bouillon,  i.  1 ; Muller-Wieseler,  Denkm.  ii.  4;  Overbeck,  Kunstmytli.  Atlas , Taf.  2,  15,  16  ; Zeus , p.  83, 
No.  14;  Frbhner,  Not.  No.  31. — Our  illustration  omits  the  restorations. 

3 There  was  a Neptune  by  Praxiteles,  possibly  the  elder,  in  Pollionis  Asinii  Monument  is,  Plin.  xxxvi.  23. 

4 Head  on  a statue  in  St.  Petersburg  ( Compte  Rendu,  1881,  PI.  VI.  1,  2).  Similar,  but  not  identical,  is 
the  head  of  the  Vatican  Artemis  (Helbig,  Museums,  37). 


COINS  OF  THURII 


105 


But  in  order  to  make  our  notion  of  these  two  consecutive  developments  of 
Pheidian  art  still  more  complete  and  definite,  we  must  see  how  they  were  reflected 
and  reproduced  in  coins.  And  first  we  must  emancipate  ourselves  from  the  current 
dating  adopted  for  the  coins  in  question.  When  coins  can  only  be  dated  from  their 
style,  this  should  only  be  done  by  reference  to  the  fixed  points  gained  by  a study  of 
the  aggregate  of  other  monuments,  and  especially  of  sculpture.  It  is  true  that  in  this 
way  only  the  date  when  any  given  type  arose  can  be  discovered,  and  not  the  period 
of  its  duration,  which,  as  Athenian  coins  show,  is  sometimes  disproportionately  long. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  art,  however,  it  is  just  the  period  of  the  rise  of  the  coin- 
type that  is  the  most  significant. 

In  B.C.  445  ten  ships  sailed  westwards  from  Athens  to  found  Thurii,  which  in 
B.C.  443  was  strengthened  by  immigrations  from  all  parts  of  Greece.  The  new  colony 
naturally  had  the  same  patron  goddess  as  Athens,  and  on  its  coins  was  stamped  a 
head  (PI.  VI.  1,  3)  whose  typical  features — form  of  helmet,  wreath  of  olive,  arrange- 
ment of  hair — were  taken  straight  over  from  the  Athenian  coins  of  the  period.1  The 
severe  style  however,  which  had  been  retained  in  Athens  from  external  reasons,  was 
abandoned  on  the  coins  of  Thurii  ; they  follow  the  style  of  the  time.  Only  in  the 
rendering  of  the  hair  on  the  forehead  with  regularly  waved  contour  and  parallel  inner 
lines  is  there  an  echo  of  the  older  prototype.  The  establishment  of  this  type  with 
the  wavy  front  hair  may  certainly  be  assigned  to  the  earliest  period  of  the  colony.2 
From  the  existence  of  numerous  dies  with  slight  variants  it  seems  clear  that  the  type 
held  its  own  for  a considerable  time,  but  its  place  in  the  history  of  art  is  fixed  by  the 
fact  that  it  is  an  Attic  creation  of  the  period  when  Pheidias  was  working  at  the 
Parthcnos.  Its  close  relation  to  the  art  of  Pheidias  is  quite  evident.  This  earlier 
type  of  Thurii  most  definitely  recalls  the  Lemnia.  The  undulating  front  hair  of  the 
Lemnia  (cf.  p.  19),  the  line  of  her  profile,  with  the  low  forehead  and  the  nose  at  a 
slight  angle  to  it,  the  restful  beauty  of  the  full  closed  mouth,  and  the  finely  wrought 
transitions  in  modelling— all  this  has  no  such  close  parallel  on  coins  as  the  earlier  type 
of  Thurii.  Somewhat  later  there  appears  in  the  same  city  a type  corresponding  to 
the  later  style  of  Pheidias  and  his  circle  ; the  hair  above  the  forehead  flows  back 
over  the  edge  of  the  helmet  nearly  as  it  does  in  the  Parthenos,  and  the  expression  is 
more  animated  and  restless  than  in  the  other  coins  (Plate  VI.  6).3 

Among  the  dies  of  the  older  type  those  signed  <3?  are  specially  fine.  Among  these 
are  found  both  staters  (the  helmet  with  simple  olive-wreath)4  and  distaters  with  Skylla 
on  the  helmet  (PI.  VI.  5).5  These  dies  are  most  probably  the  work  of  the  artist  who 
signs  with  a T>  in  Terina,  and  whose  personality  makes  itself  so  distinctly  felt  on  its 

1 Cf.  Head,  Guide,  PI.  13,  21,  23,  30,  and  the  imitations  of  this  type  in  Lykia,  ibid.  PI.  11,  38,  20,  39. 
On  the  Thokaian  electrum  hektai  the  type  is  very  similar  (Berlin  Coll.),  but  without  olive-wreath. 

2 This  is  most  clearly  proved  by  the  small  coins  of  New  Sybaris,  which  was  founded  immediately  after 
Thurii  ; the  Athena  head  is  exactly  the  same  as  on  the  older  Thurii  type  (Garrucci,  Le  Monete,  Tav.  108,  23,  25  ; 
Gardner,  Types,  PI.  I.  31,  16,  18  = our  PI.  VI.  2).  Further  imitations  of  that  Thurii  type,  which  are  to  be 
traced  in  Kyme,  must  be  dated  before  420  B.C.,  in  which  year  Kyme  was  destroyed.  Head  (Hist.  Hum.  p.  71) 
follows  the  majority  of  numismaticians  in  dating  the  coins  of  Thurii  after  420  B.C.  ; and  the  type  with  Skylla  on 
the  helmet  he  places  after  390,  although,  as  the  style  of  face  and  hair  proves,  it  must  have  arisen  very  soon  after 
the  type  with  the  olive-wreath.  Gardner  ( Types,  p.  103)  estimates  the  dates  more  correctly.  [A  beautiful  early 
coin  of  Thurii  (Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  Thur.  i. ),  belonging  to  the  series  referred  to  by  Prof.  Furtwangler,  but  still 
earlier  than  any  of  the  examples  he  cites,  has  been  pointed  out  to  me  by  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill.  It  is  now  published 
for  the  first  time,  PI.  VI.  I. — E.  S.] 

3 E.g.  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  V.  18  ; Garrucci,  Le  Monete,  Tav.  106,  9,  10,  14  ; Friedkinder  u.  Sallet,  D.  Kgl. 
Miinzcabinet,  Nos.  739  (pub.  ibid,  on  PI.  VIII.  but  marked  by  mistake  736),  743. 

4 Head,  Guide , PI.  15,  7. 

5 Friedlander  u.  Sallet,  Das  Miinzcab.  No.  741  ; the  head  as  in  Head,  Guide,  25,  17. 


P 


io6 


PHEIDIAS 


coinage.1  His  style,  in  the  design  of  the  seated  Nike  of  the  reverse  (PI.  VI.  7),  for 
instance,  bears  so  surprising  and  unmistakable  a resemblance  to  that  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze2  that  he  must  have  stood  in  the  closest  relations  to  the  artist  of  the  frieze — in 
other  words,  to  Pheidias.  PI is  activity  in  Terina  is  evidently  somewhat  later  than  his 
Thurii  period,  for  the  Thurii  work  recalls  the  style  of  the  Lemnia,  while  the  head  of 
the  nymph  on  the  coins  of  Terina  is,  like  the  reverse,  in  the  manner  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze.  These  coins  of  Terina,  following,  as  they  do,  closely  on  coins  of  the  period 
in  which  the  trammels  of  archaic  convention  are  still  felt,  must  from  evidence  of  style 
be  dated  in  the  same  time  as  the  Parthenon  frieze — i.e.  between  440  and  430  B.C. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  same  artist’s  hand  is  to  be  traced  in  the  reverse  of 
a coin  of  Pandosia,3  also  signed  <P>.  The  young  huntsman  seated  is  quite  in  the 
manner  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  (PI.  VI.  10).  The  obverse  ( ibid .)  is  even  more 
striking,  for  it  bears  a head  of  Hera  facing,  with  wavy  hair  fluttering  out  to  the 
sides — another  instance  of  the  more  recent  Pheidian  tendency,  which  we  saw  brought 
to  expression  in  certain  figures  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  (PI.  V.)  and  in  the  Dioscuri 
of  Monte  Cavallo.  The  whole  scale  of  gradation  from  the  Lemnia  to  the  Dioscuri, 
which  we  traced  in  the  large  monuments,  is  exactly  reproduced,  step  by  step — and 
this  is  a confirmation  of  the  results  attained  so  far — in  the  works  of  a die-cutter. 

The  remarkable  fact  that  the  Pheidian  style  in  its  different  phases  was  carried 
straight  from  Athens  to  Lower  Italy  comes  to  light  nowhere  more  clearly  than  on  the 
coins  just  discussed.  But  the  influence  which  transplanted  art  exercised  on  native 
work,  principally  through  the  agency  of  the  colonists  of  Thurii,  is  to  be  traced  in  a 
number  of  other  circumstances. 

The  types  of  the  Athena  heads  of  Thurii,  especially  the  one  with  the  regularly 
waved  hair,  were  rapidly  and  widely  adopted  in  Lower  Italy.  More  particularly  in 
the  Greek  towns  of  the  Campanian  coast,  Kyme,4  and  Neapolis  (PL  VI.  4), 5 we 
find  exact  copies  of  the  oldest  type  of  the  staters  of  Thurii.  About  the  time  when 
Thurii  was  founded,  Athenians  seem  to  have  settled  in  Neapolis:6  at  all  events  it 
became  a second  centre  from  which  Attic  art  spread  to  other  places.  The  neigh- 
bouring Italians — not  only  the  Campanians,  but  the  inhabitants  of  Hyria,  Nola,  and 
Phistelia 7 — stamped  on  their  coins  the  head  of  the  Attic  Athena.  Other  Greek 

1 Compare  Stuart  Poole,  Num.  Chr.  1883,  269  sqq.  PI.  11,  12.  Poole  was  the  first  to  emphasize  the  purely 

Attic  style  of  these  coins.  In  Terina  the  artist  <I>  distinguishes  himself  very  clearly  from  his  much  less  important 
contemporary  and  imitator,  the  artist  who  signs  P. — Poole’s  attempt  (p.  273)  to  identify  the  artist  4>  with  the 
artist  who  signs  4>i,  <I> iAiitt'iuip  has  been  refuted  by  Evans,  Tarentine  Horsemen,  p.  no,  note.  The 

Terina  coin  with  <t>iAis  is  quite  different  in  style  from  those  with  <f>,  and  considerably  later  : it  is  by  the  same 
Philistion  who  worked  for  Velia,  Tarentum,  probably  also  for  Metapontum  and  Herakleia,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  (cf.  Evans,  loc.  cit.  106  sqq.)  Gardner’s  hypothesis  ( Types , p.  12 1),  that  the  artist  $ might  be  Phrygillos,  who 
made  the  bull  for  the  reverse  of  the  coin  of  Thurii,  cannot  be  entertained,  as  this  artist’s  style  is  quite  different. 

2 The  correspondence  between  Num.  Chron.  1883,  PI.  11,  4,  and  the  Athena  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  is 
specially  striking. 

3 Cf.  Poole,  loc.  cit.  p.  276,  PI.  11,  14;  Head,  Guide,  PI.  25,  22. — In  the  series  of  coins  of  Pandosia  the  type 
follows  immediately  on  a head  of  severe  style  ; Head,  Guide,  PI.  15,  11  ; Hist.  Num.  p.  92,  fig.  60.  The  coin 
of  Velia  with  <f>,  which  Poole,  I’l.  11,  13,  ascribes  to  the  same  artist,  must,  I think,  be  later. 

4 Poor  example,  Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  Italy,  p.  86,  No.  6 ; a better  one  Berlin,  exact  imitation  of  the  oldest 
staters  of  Thurii.  Garrucci,  Le  Monete,  Tav.  83,  27 — 29.  Cf.  supra,  p.  105,  note  2. 

5 Head,  Guide,  PI.  15,  3;  Garrucci,  Tav.  84,  19,  85,  14.  6 Cf.  Busolt,  Gr.  Gesck.  ii.  591. 

7 Imhoof-Blumer  ( Wiener  Niuuism.  Ztsclir.  1886,  p.  226)  has  shown  that  these  coins  of  Campania  were 
struck  in  Neapolis  : the  Athena  head  is  identical  on  both.  Among  the  coins  of  Hyria  (cf.  Imhoof  Blumer,  loc. 
cit.  p.  206  sqq. ) there  occur  exact  imitations  and  freer  modifications  of  the  older  Thurii  type.  The  same  Thurii 
die  appears  in  Hyria  and  in  Nola.  As  the  nymph’s  head  of  free  style  on  the  coinage  of  Neapolis  and  Nola 
appears  to  be  from  the  same  die,  it  is  probable  that  the  Athena  heads  of  Hyria  and  Nola  were  also  stamped  in 
Neapolis. — Small  silver  pieces  of  Phistelia  with  the  older  Thurii  type  in  Berlin  (not  mentioned  by  Head,  Hist. 
Num.) — Allifa  : Garrucci,  Tav.  88,  20. 


. > 


♦ 

' 

. . .. 


. 


■ 

. 


.wkWJ  VmO 


‘ 


COINS  OF  SYRACUSE 


107 


cities,  like  Poseidonia1  and  Velia,2  imitated  the  Thurii  type  ; even  proud  Syracuse  used 
it  for  small  gold  coins,3  in  the  period  about  430  B.C.  Herakleia,  too,  which  was  founded 
in  403 — 402,  stamped  coins  first  with  the  earlier,  then  with  the  later,  types  of  Thurii,4 
and  the  bareheaded  Athena  peculiar  to  Herakleia  (PI.  VI.  18)  is,  as  we  saw  above, 
a thoroughly  Attic  conception  (p.  15),  its  nearest  parallel  in  style  being  the  older  type 
of  Thurii.  Tarentum  borrowed  from  her  daughter-city  for  her  small  silver  coin,  the 
diobol,  not  only  this  bareheaded  Athena  (cf.  p.  15),  but  notably  also  the  helmeted 
goddess  of  the  Thurii  type.5 

Next  to  the  Athena  type  of  Thurii,  which  recalls  the  Lemnia,  that  other  and 
later  Pheidian  type,  showing  a head  facing,  with  fluttering  hair,  exercised  a powerful 
influence  in  Lower  Italy.  We  found  it  in  Pandosia  adopted  for  Hera  ; it  appears  in 
K roton  and  Poseidonia,0  and  again  in  Campania — i.e.  in  Hyria-Vesernia  (PI.  VI.  9), 7 
in  a fairly  exact  copy  of  the  Attic  original  belonging  to  Pandosia.  Essentially  the  same 
type,  except  that  the  high  headdress  is  replaced  by  a broad  fillet,  is  seen  on  a series 
of  beautiful  coins  from  Neapolis  (Plate  VI.  11)  and  Phistelia.8  This  is  the  same 
head  which  we  know  in  sculpture  from  the  two  variants  in  St.  Petersburg  and 
the  Vatican  (p.  104).  On  coins  its  noblest  and  most  beautiful  form  is  due  to 
Kimon,  the  die-cutter  of  Syracuse,  who  made  the  famous  head  of  Arethusa  facing 
(Plate  VI.  12).  Arthur  Evans  has  lately  shown  in  a convincing  manner  that  Kimon 
originally  entered  the  circle  of  Syracusan  die-cutters  as  a foreigner,  and  introduced  into 
Syracusan  coin-types  certain  elements  belonging  to  Neapolis,  such  as  the  form  of  the 
earrings,  and  above  all  the  type  of  head  with  the  fluttering  hair.9  Now  this  type, 
like  the  Attic  Athena,  had  come  to  Neapolis  from  Pheidias  and  his  circle.  Another 
design,  to  which  we  may  ascribe  Attic-Pheidian  origin,  is  the  beautiful  Athena  head 
with  curly  hair,  wearing  a triple  helmet,  which  appears  on  the  Syracusan  tetradrachms 
by  Eukleidas  (Plate  VI.  13),10  and  which  seems,  like  the  head  on  the  St.  Petersburg 
gold  medallion,11  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  Parthenos. 

If  we  now  pass  from  these  minute  details  to  the  whole  development  of 
style  in  the  coinage  of  Lower  Italy  and  Sicily,  we  shall  see  that  a sudden 
and  almost  universal  revolution  took  place  about  440  B.C.  At  the  same  time  the 
coin-engravers  begin  to  sign  their  works.  Eumenes  in  Syracuse  is  the  first  to  do  so 
(Plate  VI.  15).12  The  magnificent  but  hard  features  of  the  transitional  Arethusa  head 

1 Garrucci,  Tav.  121,  36 — 38. 

2 The  older  Thurii  type  is  rare  (Garrucci,  Tav.  119,  17) ; the  later  is  more  common  (ibid.  119,  11). 

3 Head,  Num.  Chron.  N.  S.  XIV.  PI.  3,  10.  A better  copy  in  Berlin;  Head’s  date,  412,  is  certainly  too 
late  ; the  inscription  also  is  older. 

4 Exact  imitation  of  the  old  type  on  a coin  in  Berlin  stamped  over  an  incuse  of  Metapontum  or  Kroton  ; 
hippocamp  on  the  helmet.  Cf.  Garrucci,  Tav.  101,  19,  20,  36.  Those  with  the  griffin  are  late  poor  imitations  of 
the  type  [ibid,  ioi,  31)  ; those  with  Skylla  (ibid.  101,  32)  follow  the  later  Thurii  type. 

5 The  earlier  Thurii  type,  with  a hippocamp  on  the  helmet,  as  in  Herakleia,  Garrucci,  Tav.  100,  5 ; the  later  in 
many  variants, ib. Tav. 99,  51,  52  ; 100,1 — 4.  The  reverse,  Herakles  with  the  lion,  also  corresponds  with  Herakleia. 

6 Kroton  : Garrucci,  Tav.  109,  37,  38.  A later  modification  ib.  36,  39.  Head,  Guide,  PI.  25,  20.  Posei- 
donia : Head,  Hist.  Num.  p.  68  ; Garrucci,  Tav.  121,  4. 

7 Imhoof-Blumer  in  Wiener  Nu/nism.  Ztschr.  1886,  Taf.  v.  6 — 13. 

8 Fine  illustrations  in  A.  J.  Evans,  Syracusan  Medallions,  PI.  III.  1 — 3. 

9 A.  J.  Evans,  Syracusan  Medallions,  p.  77  S(N-  > PI-  HI.  (Num.  Chron.  1891),  where  the  imitations  of 
Kimon’s  head  of  Arethusa  facing  are  discussed  ; it  was  copied  with  special  exactness  at  Larisa  in  Thessaly. 

10  Weil,  Kiinstlerinschr.  Taf.  3,  7 ; Head,  Guide,  PI.  26,  31-  Cf.  Evans,  loc.  cit.  p.  70  seq. 

11  A th.  Mitth.  1883,  Taf.  15. 

12  For  the  date  of  this  artist  see  the  remarkable  researches  of  A.  J.  Evans,  Syracusan  Medallions,  London 
1892.  This  book  makes  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  controvert  the  usual  date  given  to  the  Syracusan  coins,  and 
which  I have  always  held  to  be  false.  Evans  has  proved  finally  that  the  tetradrachms  all  belong  to  the  fifth 
century,  and  that  even  the  dekadrachm  types  of  Euainetos  and  Kimon  were  created  towards  the  close  of  this 
century  (after  413  B.C.) 


io8 


PH  El  I)  IAS 


(Plate  VI.  14)  now  give  place  to  softer  and  fuller  forms  ; the  hair  is  disposed  in  thick 
undulating  locks  ; the  sharp  lines  arc  given  up,  and  the  whole  treatment  becomes 
more  pictorial.  Just  as  the  older  style  was  presumably  developed  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Pythagoras,  so  this  later  style  may  be  referred  to  the  Attic  influence  of 
Pheidias.  So  too  in  Naxos,  the  superb  Dionysos  head  of  the  severe  style,  probably 
suggested  by  some  famous  plastic  work  of  Pythagoras  (Plate  VI.  16),1  is  imme- 
diately succeeded  by  the  dignified  head  with  diadem  and  short  hair,  which  looks  as  if 
it  had  been  cut  out  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  (Plate  VI.  17).'2 

The  great  streams  of  artistic  tendency  due  to  the  separate  influence  of  men  of 
genius  and  their  schools  may  everywhere  be  traced  on  coins.  The  theory  which 
refuses  to  see  in  the  smaller  art  of  the  die-cutter  anything  but  local  style  and  auto- 
chthonous development  is  entirely  mistaken.3 

In  the  time  of  Periklcs,  Athens,  as  is  well  known,  was  in  constant  com- 
munication with  Lower  Italy  and  Sicily.  Traces  of  peace  negotiations  with  Egesta 
about  454 — 453  have  been  accidentally  preserved  on  the  fragment  of  a record.4  Coin- 
types  prove  that  Attic  art  of  the  Periklean-Pheidian  epoch  spread  from  Thurii  and 
Neapolis  to  other  places.  This  stream  was  too  strong  to  be  checked  either  by  the 
political  vicissitudes  or  even  by  the  final  defeat  of  the  Athenians  before  Syracuse. 
The  splendid  dekadrachms  of  Kimon  and  Euanietos,  struck  immediately  after  the 
victory  over  the  Athenians,  are  a product  of  that  Attic  style  5 which  was  brought  to 
Syracuse  chiefly  by  Kimon’s  agency.  In  the  fourth  century,  in  Syracuse  as  in  the 
whole  of  Magna  Graecia,  artists  drew  at  first  only  from  the  great  storehouse  of  types 
provided  by  Attic-Pheidian  art,  and  new  conceptions  grew  but  slowly. 

There  is  still  a second  class  of  monuments  which  shows  clearly  how  strong  was 
the  influx  of  Attic  art  into  Magna  Graecia  in  the  Pheidian  period,  and  how  powerful 
was  the  stimulus  it  gave  to  fresh  production.  I refer  to  the  vases.  The  style  and 
composition  which  we  have  proved  to  belong  to  the  reliefs  on  the  shield  of  the  Par- 
thenos,  and  to  correspond  with  one  series  of  Attic  vases,  reappear  all  at  once  in  a class 
of  vases  made  in  Southern  Italy.  These  vases  must  be  considered  as  the  first  products 
of  new  potteries,  since  there  is  no  early  red-figured  painting  proper  to  this  district. 
They  are  not  the  superficial  half-misunderstood  imitations  of  imported  vases  which  the 
non-Hellenic  craftsmen  of  South  Etruria  and  Campania  were  in  the  habit  of  making 
about  the  same  time  or  earlier  ; they  are  a purely  Greek  product.  Their  relation 
first  to  the  Attic  vases  of  about  440  B.C.  and  then  to  those  of  the  following  decades 
is  a very  close  one.  At  first  they  correspond  exactly  to  the  Attic  vases  in  form  and 
decoration  6 as  well  as  in  the  composition  and  general  style  of  the  paintings.  And 
yet  there  is  an  individual  touch  in  the  style  and  typology  of  the  figures  from  the  very 
beginning  ; 7 although  they  cannot  compete  with  their  Attic  prototypes  in  beauty  and 


1 Cf.  the  analogous  type  of  the  bronze  head  from  Herculaneum  (the  so-called  ‘ Plato  ’),  which  on  account 
of  its  similarity  to  the  Dionysos  of  the  Naxian  coins  I am  inclined  to  refer  to  Pythagoras  (cf.  50th  Berl. 
Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  130,  note  18). 

2 Good  illustrations  of  both  types  in  Head,  Guide,  PI.  17,  29,  30  ; Gardner,  Types,  ii.  22,  vi.  14. 

3 In  this  respect  P.  Gardner  estimates  more  correctly  ; he  feels  the  necessity  of  connecting  the  coins  with  great 

artists  ; he  is  however  mistaken  in  ascribing  {Types,  p.  118)  to  Polykleitos  a greater  influence  on  coins  than  to 

Pheidias.  4 Cf.  Lolling  in  the  AeA-n ov,  1891,  p.  105.  5 Cf.  Arthur  Evans,  loc.  cit. 

6 The  technical  marks  are  very  different.  The  clay  is  much  paler  and  duller  than  that  of  Athens,  and  is 
usually  covered  with  a thin  coat  of  red  colour  intended  to  imitate  the  colour  of  the  Athenian  vases,  but  which  is 
rarely  well  preserved.  Superimposed  colours,  red  and  white,  are  only  sparingly  used,  and  many  details,  which  in 
Attic  vases  are  wont  to  be  painted,  are  constantly  merely  blocked  out. 

7 E.g.  the  type  of  the  bearded  Seilenos  differs  from  the  Athenian  type. 


VASES  FROM  M AON  A GRAF.CIA 


109 


refinement  of  drawing  and  technique,  they  have  a rough  incisive  force  all  their 
own. 

To  make  clear  which  are  the  vases  I mean,  I will  cite  a few  of  the  principal  types. 
We  possess  a series  of  bell-shaped  kraters  which  only  the  most  exact  and  careful 
observation  of  technical  and  stylistic  points  can  distinguish  from  the  corresponding 
Attic  kraters  of  the  period  between  440  and  430.1  An  excellent  example,  though  not 
one  of  the  earliest,  is  the  krater  with  the  Expiation  of  Orestes  in  the  Louvre  ;2  it  may 
be  dated  about  420  B.C.  Among  the  hydriae,  the  one  with  the  frieze  of  Argonauts  in 
the  Cabinet  des  Medailles 3 should  be  named  first.  It  is  exactly  akin  to  the  Attic 
hydriae  of  about  440  B.C.  The  Berlin  hyclria  (No.  3164)  with  Zeus  and  Io  is  some- 
what later,  and  may  be  grouped  with  Attic  hydriae  cf  430  B.C.  and  after,  such  as  the 
one  with  Paris  and  Kadmos  (Berlin,  2633,  2634).  The  hydria  with  the  death  of 
Kanake,  a subject  derived  from  the  Aiolos  of  Euripides,4  also  belongs  to  the 
fifth  century.  Further,  there  are  a few  anaphoras  with  volute-handles  to  be  named  in 
this  connexion  ; more  especially  one  in  the  Jatta  Coll,  in  Ruvo,5 6  which  displays  on  one 
side  an  Amazonomachia  closely  analogous  in  composition  and  motives  to  the  shield 
relief  of  the  Parthenos,  and  on  the  other  the  Rape  of  the  Leukippidai  conceived  just 
as  on  Attic  vases  of  about  440  derived  from  Polygnotan  prototypes.  Equally 
Polygnotan  in  design  is  the  episode  of  Phineus  and  the  Argonaut  on  another  volute- 
amphora  of  the  same  collection.0  A specially  conspicuous  instance  from  the  period 
about  or  soon  after  430  is  a krater  in  the  Cabinet  des  Medailles  : on  one  side  is 
Odysseus  conjuring  the  shade  of  Teiresias,  on  the  other  the  Judgment  of  Paris.7  To 
the  same  class  belong  a krater  of  somewhat  more  recent  style  in  the  collection  of 
Sir  Francis  Cook,  in  Richmond,  representing  the  Blinding  of  Polyphemos  8 (from  the 
Kyklops  of  Euripides),  and  the  charming  krater  with  the  humorous  and  forcible 
rendering  of  the  Pursuit  of  Dolon.9  The  very  shape  of  the  ‘ Vasi  a colonnette’  was 
taken  over  by  Lower  Italy  straight  from  Athens,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.C, 
Vases  of  the  kinds  just  mentioned  are  found  in  Lucania  {eg.  Pomarico,  Anzi,  etc.) 
and  also  in  Apulia  (especially  Ruvo).  Technically  and  stylistically  they  form  a pre- 
paratory stage  to  the  later  Lucanian  vases,  which  rapidly  assume  a strongly  local 
stamp  and  are  hardly  ever  found  in  Apulia,  which  has  a special  vase-manufacture  of 
its  own  (i.e.  the  Tarentine).  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  these  earlier  Lower  Italy 
vases  belong  to  the  fifth  century,  for  their  existence  can  only  be  understood  on  the 
supposition  that  they  are  nearly  contemporary  with  the  parallel  productions  of 
Attic  art.  The  real  ‘ Apulian, AT.  Tarentine,  class  develops  rather  later,  but  it  still 
belongs  to  the  fifth  century  ; its  nearest  analogies  are  the  Attic  vases  of  the  period 

1 Many  in  Naples  and  in  the  Museo  Jatta  at  Ruvo  ; good  examples  in  Berlin,  Nos.  3179,  3180,  3182. 

2 Mon.  d.  Inst.  iv.  48. 

3 Gerhard,  Auserl.  Vas.  153,  154. 

4 Now  at  Bari.  Shoulder  decoration  pub.  Arch.  Ztg , 1883,  PI.  7,  1 (p.  51,  Kalkmann).  Another  hydria 

of  the  series,  Millingen,  Vases  de  Div.  Coll.  PI.  4,  5. 

6 Jatta,  1096  ; Bull.  Nap.  n.  s.  ii.  (1854),  Tav.  4 ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  xii.  16. — Another  volute-amphora  with  a 
Pheidian  Amazonomachia  is  in  Geneva  (Giraudon,  Vases  Ant.  des  Coll,  de  la  Ville  de  Geneve,  PI.  31,  32)  ; even 
the  details  of  the  drapery  exactly  imitate  Attic  vases  of  430  B.C. 

0 Mon.  d.  Inst.  iii.  49.  Ornamentation  precisely  like  the  Attic.  The  line  indicating  the  ground  is  incised 
A third  volute-amphora  with  Herakles  and  Kyknos  in  Jatta  {Bull.  Nap.  n.  s.  i.  6 ; cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon, 
i.  2231)  stands  very  near  Attic  prototypes  of  430  B.C. 

7 Mon.  d.  Inst.  iv.  18,  19. 

8 Jakrb.  d.  Inst.  1891,  Taf.  6 ; the  original  (which  I examined  in  1888)  shows  burning  fire  on  the  logs  ot 
wood ; the  youth  clearly  wears  a pilos.  Winter’s  suggestion  that  the  vase  is  Attic  is  untenable,  alike  from 
technique  and  style;  with  the  head  of  Polyphemos  cf.  for  example  the  Phineus,  Mon.  iii.  49. 

9 Bull.  Nap.  i.  (1843),  Tav.  7 ; Overbeck,  Gall.  Taf.  17,  4. 


I 10 


PHEIDIAS 


after  430.  A conspicuous  instance  occurs  on  the  volute-amphora  (St.  Petersburg,  No. 
523),  where  the  Gigantomachia  1 is  treated  as  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthenos,  and  the 
drawing  of  the  wavy  hair,  the  ornaments  on  the  drapery,  etc.,  are  plain  echoes  of 
those  Attic  prototypes.  In  this  connexion  it  is  instructive  to  study  the  fragments  of  an 
unusually  large  and  splendid  Attic  lcrater  (unpublished)  from  Kertsch  in  St.  Petersburg,2 
which  show  in  a striking  manner  how  closely  Tarentine  work  clings  to  Attic  tradition 
of  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  Both  groups  of  vases,  the  early  Lower  Italian  and  the 
Tarentine  (Apulian),  are  merely  offshoots  of  Attic  art  transplanted  into  new  soil.  The 
subjects  of  the  earlier  group,  such  as  the  various  Argonaut  pictures  and  the  Rape  of 
the  Leukippidai,3  arc  at  first  derived  from  the  circle  of  Polygnotan  painting,  but 
subjects  from  the  Attic  drama  soon  make  their  appearance  and  afford  the  strongest 
confirmation  of  the  essentially  Attic  character  of  these  vases  ; this  dramatic  material 
is  brought  straight  over  from  Athens  fresh  and  undiluted.  In  the  Tarentine  group, 
which  was  still  developing  in  the  last  decades  of  the  fifth  century  and  continued  to 
flourish  through  the  first  half  of  the  fourth,  the  tragedies  of  Euripides,  as  is  well 
known,  hold  the  chief  place.  They  dominate  vase-painting,  not  as  ‘ classical  ’ literature, 
but  as  the  new,  sensational,  and  fashionable  poetry  of  the  day.  Even  the  Sicilians, 
we  know  from  reliable  tradition,4  were  enthusiastic  admirers  of  Euripides  as  early  as 
412  B.C.,  and  eagerly  learned  by  heart  fragments  of  his  dramas  brought  to  them  by 
Athenian  deserters. 

The  facts  touched  upon  so  far  seem  to  me  to  be  capable  of  the  following 
explanation.  With  the  founding  of  Thurii,  Attic  ceramic  art  was  transplanted 
into  the  district.  Its  exotic  development  began  about  440  B.C.  The  products  of 
the  new  workshops  were  distributed  not  only  in  the  inland  district  of  Thurii  and 
the  Siritis,  but  also  in  a north-easterly  direction  towards  Apulia.  Then  came 
the  contest  with  Tarentum,  and  the  treaty  which  found  outward  expression  in  the 
establishment  of  a common  colony,  Herakleia.  I think  it  probable  that  the  manu- 
facture of  vases  was  continued  in  the  latter  city  and  spread  thence  to  Tarentum, 
where  it  would  flourish  greatly  owing  to  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  city,  and  thus 
gradually  come  to  supplant  the  import  trade  from  Herakleia,  at  least  so  far  as  Apulia 
was  concerned.  The  Herakleian  potteries  thus  lost  their  importance,  their  wares 
(the  later  Lucanian  vases)  became  poorer,  and  assumed  a more  and  more  exclusively 
local  character.5 

The  export  trade  of  Athens  itself  was  naturally  materially  injured  by  the 
existence  of  this  new  centre  of  vase-painting  in  Southern  Italy.  After  400  B.C. 
no  Attic  vases  of  later  style  seem  to  have  come  to  Apulia,  although  the  export  to 
Campania  continued  to  flourish  for  some  time.  Thus  the  attempt  of  Athens  to 
found  an  independent  colony,  Thurii,  was  prejudicial,  in  this  particular  as  in  others, 
to  the  Mother  City.  Athens  gave  of  her  strength,  and  received  nothing  in  return. 

1 Bull.  Nap.  ii.  (1844),  Tav.  6. 

2 On  one  side,  above,  a great  assembly  of  the  gods  with  Zeus  enthroned,  below  the  Dioskouroi  riding  (?) 
and  Herakles  as  victor  : presumably  the  picture  represented  the  institution  of  the  Olympic  games  and  the  first 
victors.  White  and  yellow  are  laid  on  freely,  many  of  the  heads  are  drawn  facing,  all  this  as  in  the  Tarentine 
vases. 

3 Since  the  appearance  of  Kopp’s  admirable  essay  [Arch.  Anz.  1892,  p.  12<\  sqq.)  the  paintings  on  vases  of 
Tarentine  manufacture  relating  to  the  Persian  war  may  be  reckoned  among  those  representations  inspired  by  the 
Polygnotan  circle. 

4 Plut.  Nikias,  29. 

6 During  this  whole  epoch  Sicily  had  no  potteries  of  her  own.  Her  market  was  supplied,  after  the  fall  of 
the  Attic  power,  by  different  potteries  of  Lower  Italy.  This  is  the  result  of  my  observations  in  Sicilian 
collections. 


VASES  FROM  MAGNA  GRAECIA 


I I I 


Nevertheless,  for  a right  appreciation  of  the  power  and  significance  of  Attic 
art  as  it  was  when  Pheidias  had  impressed  upon  it  the  mark  of  his  genius,  the 
history  of  its  triumphal  entrance  into  Magna  Graecia  will  always  be  of  the  highest 
importance.  We  have  only  touched  upon  some  of  the  chief  features  of  this 
history  ; much  remains  unsaid.  I will  close  with  one  more  example.  The  famous 
Ficoroni  Cista  in  Rome  by  a master  of  Praeneste  is  the  genuine  offspring  of 
Polygnoto-Pheidian  art.  Its  types  are  derived  from  the  same  source  as  those  of 
the  Argonaut  pictures  on  early  Lower  Italy  vases — viz.  from  the  paintings  of  the 
Polygnotan  circle.  This  is  evident  from  the  separate  motives  and  their  details, 
although  there  are  many  concessions  to  Latin  taste.  The  Cista  must  be  of  nearly 
the  same  date  as  the  vases.1 

We  have  travelled  far  from  our  original  starting-point,  the  Lemnia  of  Pheidias. 
The  great  creations  of  the  brilliant  Attic  period  are  like  suns,  each  the  centre 
of  a multitude  of  smaller  stars  on  which  they  pour  light  and  life.  The  art  of  Athens 
in  the  fifth  century  was  as  far-reaching  and  widespread  as  her  empire  ; and  the 
style  which,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  was  individual  to  Pheidias  accomplished 
the  vast  success  and  gave  the  strong  stimulus  which  we  have  studied  in  some  of 
their  manifestations. 

1 The  inscription,  as  is  well  known,  only  gives  a terminus  ante  quern.  The  ornamentation  and  the  picture 
on  the  lid  point  to  an  older  period  ; no  less  the  feet  of  the  cista,  which,  like  the  relief  of  Theseus,  Peirithoos,  and 
Herakles  (Helbig,  Museums,  826),  are  derived  from  a relief  of  Pheidian  style.  It  is  as  certain  that  the  cista,  the 
feet,  and  the  handle  were  all  made  at  the  same  time,  as  it  is  that  the  whole  was  made  in  Rome. 


KRESILAS  AND  MYRON 


KRESILAS  AND  MYRON 


I.  Literary  and  Epigraphical  Evidence  for  the  Life  of  K res  Has. 

SIDE  by  side  with  Pheidias  and  his  immediate 
circle  there  were  other  artists  who  followed 
an  independent  line.  Among  these  Kresilas 
has  long  been  recognized  as  one  of  the  most  important. 
Pliny,  in  his  history  of  bronze  statuary,  mentions  him 
no  less  than  three  times  : first,  in  the  larger  alphabetical 
list  of  the  insignes  (xxxiv.  74),  where  he  names  him  as 
the  artist  of  a statue  representing  a wounded  man, 

‘ in  which  might  be  seen  how  much  of  life  remained,’ 
and  of  a portrait  of  Perikles,  worthy  of  the  epithet 
‘ Olympian  ’ — adding  that  it  is  marvellous  how  the 
art  of  portraiture  can  make  a celebrated  man  still 
more  celebrated.  The  second  mention  occurs  as  an 
appendix  to  the  list  of  artists  given  under  C.  It  states 
that  Cresilas  also  made  a ‘ doryphoros  ’ and  a ‘wounded 
amazon  ’ (xxxiv.  76).  The  MS.  reading  of  the  name  is, 
it  is  true,  corrupt,  but  there  is  little  doubt  that  Brunn’s 
reading,  Cresilas is  correct.  Finally,  Pliny  names  him 
among  the  laudatissimi  who  made  statues  of  Amazons  for  a competition  ; Kresilas 
being  placed  third  in  the  order  of  merit,  after  Polyklcitos  and  Pheidias  (xxxiv.  53). 

Neither  Pausanias  nor  any  other  writer  mentions  the  artist  by  name,  if  we  except 
a corrupt  passage  in  the  Auctor  ad  Herennium  where  Brunn  2 restores  with  strong 
probability  ....  caput  Myroniuni , brachia  Praxitelia , pectus  Polyclitium , ventrem  et 
crura  Cresilaea.  We  can  however  scarcely  conclude  from  these  words  that  Kresilas 
really  excelled  in  the  rendering  of  the  abdomen  and  the  legs,  for  the  rhetor  is 
obviously  connecting  at  random  particular  parts  of  the  body  with  the  names  of 
celebrated  artists  ;3  so  that,  even  were  Brunn’s  reading  absolutely  certain,  we  could  only 
gather  from  it  that  the  rhetors  reckoned  Kresilas  among  the  most  famous  artists. 

Fortunately,  several  inscriptions  from  works  of  the  artist  himself  have  been  pre- 
served, no  less  than  three  of  which  are  from  the  Akropolis.  The  first  of  these  belongs 
to  the  portrait  of  Perikles  ;4  from  the  character  of  the  epigraphy,  Lolling  has  dated  it 
circa  440—430.  The  second  inscription,  belonging  to  the  base  of  a votive  statue  put  up 
by  a certain  Hermolykos,5  can  be  dated  as  far  back  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
The  third  li  seems  to  be  rather  later  ; it  is  metrical,  and  found  its  way  into  the 
Anthology.  I11  it  the  artist  mentions  Kydonia  in  Krete  as  his  birthplace.  The  work 

1 Gesch.  d.  Kiinstler,  i.  p.  261.  2 Sitzuvgsber.  d.  Bayr.  Akad.,  Philos. -philol.  t/asse,  18S0,  p.  4S1. 

3 See  Kekule,  Kopf  des  Praxit.  Hermes,  p.  23  seq.  4 AtAiluv  ap^aioA.  18S9,  p.  36. 

5 Lowy,  1.  G.  B.  No.  46.  6 Lowy  No.  47. 


KRESILAS 


1 16 

was  the  gift  of  a certain  Pyres  ; and  the  wording  of  the  inscription,  rovbe  Uvpr/s 
avedtj/cs  IIoXupLiJijo-Tou  cf)i!\os  vtos,  tv^afievos  SeKUTyv  TldWabc  rpcToyevei,  shows  that 
it  was  probably  the  portrait  of  the  donor.1  All  these  inscriptions  are  in  pure  Attic 
characters,  thus  proving  that  the  artist  must  have  resided  at  least  some  time  in  Athens. 

A fourth  inscription  shows  him,  on  the  other  hand,  at  work  in  the  Peloponnesos, 
in  the  province  of  Argolis  ; it  comes  from  the  basis  of  an  offering  to  Demeter 
Chthonia  at  Hermione,2  dedicated  by  a certain  Alexias.  In  it  Kresilas  again  calls 
himself  a Ivydoniate,  but  this  time  he  uses  the  characters  of  the  place  where  he  is  at 
work,  and  in  so  doing  is  moreover  guilty  of  a blunder.3  An  inscription  from  what  is 
evidently  the  companion  work  to  this  gift  of  Alexias,4  an  offering  on  the  part  of  his 
son,  gives  the  name  of  an  artist  from  Argos.  Kresilas  is  thus  shown  engaged  on 
work  for  a family  of  Hermione  in  company  with  an  Argive  artist  ; and  the  probability 
is  that  he  was  living  at  Argos  at  the  time,  and  received  the  commission  conjointly  with 
the  native  artist.  As  these  inscriptions  have  nothing  archaic  about  them,  it  seems 
probable  that  the  artist  came  to  Argos  after — and  not  before — his  sojourn  in  Athens. 
An  inscribed  basis  of  blackish  limestone  which  has  lately  been  discovered  at  Delphi 
during  the  French  excavations5  must  be  of  still  later  date,  as  on  it  the  name  of  the 
artist  and  his  nationality  appear  inscribed  in  pure  Ionic  characters. 

Even  from  these  few  dates  we  can  gather  a good  deal  of  information  concerning 
the  artist’s  life.  Born  at  Kydonia  in  Krete,  he  must  have  left  home  early,  in  order  to 
cultivate  his  talents — for  we  know  of  no  school  of  artists  in  Krete  at  that  time.  To 
judge  from  coins,  the  dominating  note  of  Kretan  art  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries 
was  purely  barbaric.  Yet  side  by  side  with  an  astonishing  lack  of  artistic  skill  we  can 
detect  here  and  there  proofs  of  a special  aptitude  for  pictorial  and  realistic  representa- 
tion. The  celebrated  coins  of  Gortyna  with  Europa  or  with  Zeus  Velchanos  seated 
in  a tree,  the  pieces  representing  oxen,  much  foreshortened,  licking  themselves,  the 
coins  of  Phaistos  with  the  seated  figure  of  Herakles  resting — all  seek  to  reproduce 
nature  in  a bold  and  direct  manner.5  These  coins  are  later,  it  is  true,  than  the  youth 
of  Kresilas,  but  they  show  in  what  lay  the  special  artistic  quality  of  the  islanders,  and 
we  shall  not  be  surprised  if  we  meet  in  him  with  the  like  characteristics. 

It  was,  of  course,  only  natural  that  the  young  artist  should  turn  his  steps  to  the 
brilliant  and  artistic  Athens.  Here  he  seems  to  have  succeeded  in  working  his  way 
up  among  the  first  artists,  and  in  obtaining  a great  reputation,  especially  as  a 
portraitist.  Otherwise  he  would  certainly  not  have  been  intrusted  with  the  bust 
of  Perikles,  the  most  distinguished  and  powerful  man  in  the  city.  The  commission 
was,  it  is  true,  only  a private  one,  as  we  learn  from  the  inscription  ; but  this  makes  no 
difference,  for  Perikles  and  his  friends  could  certainly  command  the  best  artistic  skill 
of  the  day  just  as  well  as  the  state.  And  supposing  the  portrait  to  have  been, 
as  has  been  suggested,  a gift  on  the  part  of  the  artist  (see  infra),  this  would  at 
once  prove  him  to  have  stood  in  close  personal  relations  to  Perikles.  As  to  the 
migration  of  Kresilas  to  Argos,  it  was  doubtless  occasioned  by  the  outbreak  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War,  which  must  have  rendered  residence  in  Athens  unpleasant  for  an 

1 Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  1880,  p.  28,  note  1,  and  more  especially  the  inscription  of  a votive  portrait-statue  from 
about  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  ’Erpr/pepls  apx . 1891,  p.  56,  Plate  6 : AvcrucAeLtiris  . . . avtt)T)Kev  -riv8e 

dea  rrjSe  ...  2 Lowy,  No.  45. 

3 Writing  in  the  second  line  X instead  of  T.  See  Kirchhoff,  Studien,  4th  ed.  p.  160  seq. 

4 Unfortunately  only  known  from  a transcript  taken  by  Fourmont,  Lowy,  No.  51.  Cf.  Kirchhoff, 
loc.  cit. 

5 Shortly  to  be  published  by  the  French. 

8 Cf.  St.  Poole,  Num.  Chron.  1864,  240 ; P.  Gardner,  Types , p.  161. 


PORTRAIT  OF  PERI KLES 


II 7 

artist,  especially  if  he  were  a foreigner.  The  cessation  of  artistic  activity,  the  uncertain 
turn  of  the  war,  the  breaking  out  of  the  plague,  and  above  all  the  death  of  Perikles,  whom 
we  may  look  upon  as  his  patron,  would  be  sufficient  reasons  for  leaving  Athens. 
Argos  on  the  other  hand  had,  at  this  time,  undoubted  attractions  for  an  artist : being  a 
neutral  state,  it  enjoyed  absolute  peace,  and  its  famous  school  was  gradually  becoming 
the  leading  artistic  centre  in  Greece,  now  that  numerous  calamities  were  forcing 
Athens  into  the  background. 

A study  of  the  marble  copies  executed  in  Roman  times  after  the  works  of 
Kresilas  will  help  materially  to  fill  up  this  outline  of  the  artist’s  career. 

II.  The  Portrait  of  Perikles. 

The  existence  of  copies  of  the  portrait  of  Perikles  by  Kresilas  may  be  taken  as 
proved.1  Two  terminal  busts,  one  in  the  British  Museum  and  one  in  the  Vatican,  bear 
the  ancient  inscriptions  of  the  name  of  Perikles  ; they  go  back  to  the  same  original,  and 
from  the  style  this  original  must  have  belonged  to  the  time  of  Perikles.  Their 
identification  as  copies  after  the  celebrated  work  by  Kresilas  has  lately  been  further 
confirmed  by  the  discovery  on  the  Akropolis  of  the  inscribed  basis  that  supported 
the  original.  It  is  only  a fragment,  but  it  bears  the  inscription,  restored  indubitably 
correctly,  by  Lolling  : — 

IlepjirtAeo? 

Kpeo-JAa?  iirole 

If,  as  is  probable,  the  inscription  occupied  the  middle  of  the  block,  the  basis 
cannot  have  been  more  than  some  40  cm.  broad,  a size  to  which  the  smallness  of  the 
lettering2  would  be  well  adapted.  Now  so  narrow  a basis  could  not  carry  a statue, 
but  only  a term,  so  that  it  seems  proved  that  the  terms  with  the  inscription 
1 Perikles  ’ 3 are  reproductions  of  the  actual  work  by  Kresilas.  The  original 
inscription  shows  that  the  work  was  only  a private  offering  ; as  the  donor  is  not 
mentioned,  Lolling  supposes  it  to  have  been  put  up  by  the  artist  himself.  Pausanias 
also  mentions  this  portrait  of  Perikles  on  the  Akropolis,  without  however  naming 
the  artist.4 5 6 

Of  the  two  replicas,  the  one  in  London  undoubtedly  gives  the  best  idea  of  the 
original  (Plate  VII.  ; profile  in  Fig.  46).®  The  head  has  never  been  separated  from  the 
bust  and  the  neck  is  unbroken,  so  that  the  exact  carriage  and  turn  are  preserved.  In 
the  Vatican  replica,0  the  head  had  been  broken  off  and  a piece  of  the  neck  is  restored  ; 
the  neck  has  become  shortened  in  the  operation,  and  the  characteristic  pose  of  the 
head — and  with  it  one  of  the  chief  charms  of  the  work — is  thus  lost.  Both  these 
copies  are  well  and  carefully  executed  ; their  substantial  agreement  testifies  to  their 

1 First  asserted  by  Bergk  and  Brunn  (K.  G.  i.  262). 

2 Lolling  in  the  AeArlov  ap\aio\.  1889,  p.  36  seq.  I have  examined  the  basis  myself.  Its  original  breadth 
was  probably  044.  The  depth  is  now  only  8 — 9 cm.  In  the  upper  surface  on  the  right  a mortise  hole  is 
distinctly  visible  (also  in  Lolling’s  illustration),  but  it  need  not  be  original.  The  fragment  affords  no  decisive 
evidence  for  or  against  the  assumption  of  a terminal  bust. 

3 The  breadth  of  the  shaft  of  the  London  term  is  28  cm.,  which  would  suit  a basis  of  about  40  cm. 
very  well. 

4 Paus.  i.  28,  2 ; 25,  1 ; avSpicLs  need  not  necessarily  mean  a whole  statue.  For  the  site  cf.  supra,  p. 

10  seq.  It  has  been  remarked  (p.  62,  note  6)  that  the  Xanthippos  and  the  Anakreon  stood  elsewhere,  and  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  Perikles  portrait  or  with  Kresilas. 

5 The  older  publications  are  cited  in  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  No.  481. 

6 Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmaler  ; Helbig,  Museums , 281. 


KRESILAS 


1 1 8 

fidelity.  The  Vatican  replica,  however,  reproduces  the  separate  curls  of  the  beard 
with  greater  precision  and  severity,  and  shows  the  hair  on  the  top  of  the  head 
immediately  below  the  eyeholes  of  the  helmet,  a detail  which  must  have  been  in  the 
original,  since  it  emphasizes  the  high  shape  of  head  peculiar  to  Perikles.  There  is  a 
third  very  mediocre  replica  (without  inscription)  in  the  Barracco  collection  at  Rome.1 

This  portrait  of  Perikles  is  a vivid  commentary  on  what  Thucydides  wrote  con- 
cerning the  temper  and  manner  of  the  great  statesman.  Artist  and  historian  alike 
show  us  a man  raised  far  above  his  fellow-citizens  by  the  superiority  of  his  mind 
and  the  distinction  of  his  character.  Although  we  possess  numerous  contemporary 
portraits,  it  would  be  difficult  to  match  the  tranquil  dignity  of  this  bust  of  Perikles. 
The  pose  of  the  head,  which  is  inclined  a little  to  one  side  and  slightly  thrown  back, 
is  so  personal  that  it  must  have  been  studied  from  the  life.  In  this  pose  lies  the 
secret  of  that  gentleness  which  is  a distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  head — a 
gentleness  arising  not  from  weakness,  but  from  an  innate  nobility  of  soul.  The  artist, 
though  confined  to  a bust,  has  yet  contrived  to  suggest  the  whole  personage.  We 
can  almost  fancy  that  we  see  Perikles  before  us  raising  his  head  in  dignified  uncon- 
cern, however  loud  the  voices  of  his  accusers  and  slanderers  might  rise  about  him. 
This  outer  security  well  expressed  the  inner  purity  of  that  incorruptible  nature  to 
which  Kresilas  and  Thucydides  bear  equal  witness. 

The  mouth,  which  almost  borders  on  ugliness,  is  specially  distinctive.2  Broader 
than  is  customary,  with  voluptuous  lips — the  under  lip  is  especially  full — it  is  not  the 
mouth  of  a man  accustomed  to  impose  his  will  on  others  with  an  arbitrary  and  iron 
determination,  but  its  mobile  and  sensuous  curves  accord  admirably  with  the  eloquent 
manner  and  persuasive  grace  of  Perikles,  and  are  not  without  a suggestion  of  the 
tender  and  faithful  lover  of  Aspasia  and  of  the  patron  and  protector  of  artists. 

The  external  mien  of  Perikles  was  conspicuous  not  only  for  mildness  and  tran- 
quillity, but  for  the  seriousness  of  its  expression  : he  had  ‘ a gravity  of  countenance 
which  relaxed  not  into  laughter  ’ (Plutarch,  Per.  5).  Should  any  one  interpret  this 
to  mean  starched  and  formal  dignity — a quality  for  the  rest  quite  foreign  to  the 
Greek  genius — the  portrait  would  promptly  undeceive  him.  A profound  seriousness 
pervades  the  features,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  self-importance.  Rather  do  we  seem 
to  be  looking  upon  the  ideal  portrait  of  the  ruler  of  a democracy,  on  whom  it  is 
incumbent  to  be  the  first  in  intrinsic  merit  as  in  mental  distinction. 

The  other  peculiarities  are  more  superficial  : as,  for  example,  the  mode  of  wearing 
the  hair  and  beard,  which  are  cut  somewhat  short,  the  beard  allowing  the  full  round 
chin  to  be  clearly  seen  underneath.  The  short  curly  hair  is  very  thick,  and 
the  back  of  the  helmet  seems  to  rest  on  it,  as  on  a pillow.  The  close,  well-ordered 
hair  and  beard  are  not  without  significance  in  the  portrait  of  the  man  who  sur- 
passed his  fellow-citizens  even  in  evKoa/j-ia  and  eva^j/ioaumj.  We  must  also 
remember  that  in  the  days  of  Perikles  artists  left  off  representing  the  gods  with 
long  abundant  locks,  and  gave  short  close  hair  even  to  the  most  august  of  the 
Olympian  gods. 

The  helmet,  as  noted  long  ago,  marks  the  office  of  strategos , which  Perikles 
filled  without  a break  from  about  445  B.C.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose — with 
later  classical  authors — that  the  artist  represented  Perikles  wearing  the  helmet  in 

1 Coll.  Barracco , PI.  39,  39  a.  The  head  in  Munich,  called  Perikles  (Brunn,  Glypt.  5th  ed.  157), 
evidently  represents  quite  a different  person,  as  Friederichs  ( Batist . p.  125)  had  already  observed. 

2 In  the  Vatican  head  the  characteristic  form  is  somewhat  weakened,  but  the  London  head  reproduces  it 
with  evident  fidelity. 


♦ 1 


VII. 

Portrait  of  Periklcs. 

BRITISH  MUS&.UM. 

• „ • 

■ 


■ ” : 


v;, 


- 

' **"  '• 

■■■•,  :■  • '"il.  >■■»*•'*  ; ^ 


* 


# v • , 


,>  • , ■ 

T • * .a 


■ • ♦ n 


i 1 / 


...  Vxvs 'v*  \uj \W\  . 

♦ 


■ u&'yu  ,iw  i liJiH  , 


».  . 


♦ 

% 

■ V f li 

• 

* 


* 


< 


PORTRAIT  OF  PERIKLES 


1 19 

order  to  hide  the  long  shape  of  his  head,  for,  as  we  sec  from  the  Vatican  replica, 
he  evidently  tried  to  make  this  characteristic  obvious  even  through  the  open 
eyeholes. 

The  inscription  from  the  Akropolis,  as  noted  above,  is  approximately  dated  at 
440 — 430  B.C.  Within  this  period  there  is  no  event  so  likely  to  have  occasioned  the 
dedication  of  the  portrait  in  the  sanctuary  of  Athena  Polias  as  the  return  of  the 


Fig.  46. — Teiminal  bust  of  Perikles  in  the  British  Museum.  (From  the  original.) 


victorious  general  from  the  most  difficult  and  glorious  of  his  campaigns— the  one 
undertaken  against  Samos  in  B.C.  439.  Gratitude  for  his  successful  return  would 
afford  a specially  suitable  occasion  for  his  friends  to  dedicate  his  portrait  to  the 
goddess  who  had  lent  him  her  aid.  The  work  would  thus  have  been  executed  at 
a time  when  Perikles  had  roused  immense  popular  enthusiasm  by  his  funeral  oration 
over  those  who  had  fallen  in  the  war — an  occasion  on  which  the  women  adorned  him 


120 


KRESILAS 


with  crowns  and  chaplets  (Plut.  Per.  28).  Maybe  that  the  image  of  Perikles  as  he 
stood  there  before  the  people  on  that  day  inspired  the  artist  at  his  work. 

In  turning  to  consider  the  formal  peculiarities  of  the  work,  we  note  first  that  the 
eye  is  very  long  and  narrow,  and,  although  the  glance  is  inclined  upwards,  it  yet  seems 
scarcely  opened,  while  the  lid  has  a heavy  droop.  The  lids  are  very  strong  and  full, 
and  the  lachrymal  glands  are  prominent.  The  distance  between  the  inner  corners  of 
the  eyes  is  not  great,  and  the  root  of  the  nose  is  narrow.1 

The  face  is,  in  the  manner  of  the  time,  represented  with  the  smooth  skin  tightly 
drawn  over  and  without  any  lines,  except  that  on  either  side  of  the  root  of  the  nose, 
at  the  birth  of  the  eyebrows,  the  artist  has  introduced  a little  vertical  wrinkle,  and 
below  it,  to  mark  off  the  nose,  two  little  horizontal  cuts.  These  lines  are  of  course 
appropriate  to  the  serious  thoughtful  man,  no  longer  in  his  first  youth,  but  the  way  in 
which  they  are  introduced  and  executed  must  certainly  be  peculiar  to  the  artist. 

The  distinguishing  quality  of  the  hair  is  its  plastic  fulness,  indicated  in  spite  of  its 
shortness.  It  is  not  arranged  symmetrically,  but  is  composed  of  a maze  of  little  curling 
locks.  Similar  locks  occur  here  and  there  in  the  beard,2  though  the  hair  of  the  beard 
is  on  the  whole  still  shorter,  and  instead  of  curling  merely  turns  up  at  the  ends. 

It  is  scarcely  likely  that  this  portrait  of  Perikles  was  the  only  work  of  the  kind 
undertaken  by  Kresilas, — and,  among  the  many  similar  helmeted  heads  preserved, 
it  is  not  unreasonable  to  hope  for  some  trace  of  his  hand.  The  Berlin  collection, 
for  instance,  possesses  a marble  head,3  which — allowance  being  made  for  the  differ- 
ences of  copyists — resembles  in  the  highest  degree  the  peculiar  style  of  the  Perikles 
(Fig.  47).  It  has  been  placed  on  a term  that  does  not  belong  to  it ; the  neck  below 
the  beard  and  the  hair  at  the  back  are  modern.  Nothing  else  is  restored  except  the 
lower  half  of  the  nose,  the  top  of  the  helmet,  and  the  point  of  the  visor.  The  head 
is  turned  a little  to  the  right.  The  copyist  has  made  great  use  of  the  drill  both  in 
hair  and  beard. 

In  the  general  conception  of  the  individual,  a quality  more  easily  felt  than 
described,  there  is  singular  coincidence  between  the  two  portraits,  as  may  be  seen 
by  comparing  them  to  other  contemporary  works.  The  separate  features,  however, 
are  in  some  respects  completely  different.  The  Berlin  head  has  long  hair,  parted 
in  front  and  smoothed  away  behind  the  ears,  at  the  back  falling  loose  upon  the 
neck,  thus  affording  no  opportunity  for  the  little  close  curls  of  the  Perikles.  But  for 
all  that  the  treatment  is  closely  allied  ; as  in  the  one  the  little  curls,  so  in  the  other 
the  larger  strands,  cross  and  intertwine  — perhaps  just  a trifle  mechanically.  The 
beard,  too,  in  the  Berlin  head  is  longer  than  in  the  Perikles,  but  has  the  same  round 
outline,  and  is  composed  of  similar  little  meshes  of  hair  with  curling  ends.  As  the 
beard  is  thicker,  these  meshes  do  not  lie  close  to  the  chin  and  cheeks  in  the  same  way, 
yet  the  resemblance  would  be  materially  greater  had  not  the  copyist,  by  using  the 
drill  freely,  introduced  an  element  quite  foreign  to  the  original.  The  likeness  to 
the  Perikles  is  enhanced  by  the  manner  in  which  the  beard  grows  from  the  cheek  and 
by  the  cut  of  the  moustache,  which  leaves  the  line  of  the  lip  quite  free.  The  hair 
is  kept  well  away  from  the  under  lip,  another  point  in  which  the  head  resembles 

1 The  proportions,  measured  on  the  London  head,  are  as  follows  : clear  length  of  eye  = 36  mm. ; without 
lachrymal  gland  = 32  mm.;  height  = 12  mm.  ; distance  between  inner  corners  only  28—29  mm.  instead  of  a 
whole  eye-length  as  elsewhere.  The  length  of  mouth,  according  to  a very  usual  proportion  = A t™es  the 
length  of  the  eyes  (54  mm.).;  it  seems  that  the  length  of  the  mouth  (a  feature  peculiar  to  the  man  pourtrayed) 
brought  the  unusually  long  eye  in  its  train. 

2 At  any  rate  in  the  Vatican  head,  which  in  this  respect  is  the  more  faithful  ; cf.  p.  117. 

3 Skulpt.  No.  31 1. 


i> 


Fig.  47. — Head  of  a strategos  (Berlin). 


I 22 


KRESILAS 


the  Perikles.  Then  in  the  eyes  we  have  again  the  heavy  eyelids  and  pronounced 
lachrymal  glands  — just  a little  altered  by  the  hand  of  the  copyist  — together 
with  the  relatively  narrow  nose.1  It  is  especially  instructive  to  find  that  the 
Berlin  head  displays,  upon  an  otherwise  smooth  skin,  precisely  those  same 
stylistic  little  lines  at  the  root  of  the  nose  which  in  the  Perikles  were  seen  to 
be  treated  in  a manner  quite  personal  to  the  artist.  The  helmet  differs  slightly  from 
that  of  the  Perikles  in  having  just  above  the  ears  what  seems  to  be  the  turned-up 
end  of  a broad  leather  strap. 

The  Berlin  head,  then,  may  be  accepted  as  a copy  of  another  portrait  of  a 
Greek  general  from  the  hand  of  Kresilas,  rather  later  than  the  Perikles,  for  in 
spite  of  substantial  agreement  the  treatment  of  hair  and  beard  gives  an  impression 
of  greater  freedom  and  of  technical  advance.2  We  may  think  of  it,  therefore,  as 
executed  somewhere  about  the  beginning  of  the  Peloponnesian  War. 


III.  The  Diitrephes. 

Another  celebrated  work  of  Kresilas  mentioned  by  Pliny  (xxxvi.  74)  represented 
a wounded  man  on  the  point  of  death.  An  ingenious  theory  connects  this  work  with 
the  bronze  statue  of  a certain  Diitrephes  pierced  with  arrows,  noted  by  Pausanias3  in 
his  description  of  the  Akropolis  as  standing  close  to  the  Athena  Plygieia  the  basis  of 
which  may  still  be  seen  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Propylaia.  In  the  year  1839 
a square  basis  inscribed 'Ep/zoXu/co?  AieiTpecpos  airapyiv  K pecr/Xa?  iiroeaev4  was  found 
built  between  the  Propylaia  and  the  Parthenon  ; and,  since  this  basis  might  easily  have 
got  shifted  farther  eastwards  from  its  original  position  for  later  building  purposes, 
L.  Ross  at  once  suggested  that  it  had  belonged  to  the  statue  of  Diitrephes  mentioned 

1 The  head  is  life-size,  like  the  Perikles  ; the  nose  and  lower  part  of  the  face  have  the  same  proportions; 
the  eyes  are  shorter  (33  mm. ),  but  the  mouth  is  also  of  normal  width.  The  distance  between  the  inner  corners 
of  the  eyes  is  a full  eye-length. 

2 There  also  exist  copies  of  two  beautiful  heads  of  strategoi  by  a master  closely  related  to  Kresilas,  though 
he  is  quite  distinct  from  him  both  in  general  conception  and  in  the  treatment  of  details.  The  first  ,is  the  so-called 
‘ Themistokles  ’ in  the  Vatican  (Helbig,  482);  the  second  is  the  Pastoret  head  (Fr.-Wolters,  484),  of 
which  the  Munich  head  in  the  Glyptothek,  157  (F.-W.  483),  is  only  a mutilated  replica,  though  valuable  on 
account  of  the  careful  execution  of  what  remains  ; a third  replica  of  the  same  portrait  is  in  the  Villa  Albani,  40. 
It  is  especially  in  the  peculiar  treatment  of  the  beard  that  the  same  hand  becomes  apparent  for  both  heads.  The 
‘ Themistokles  ’ is  probably  the  earlier  work  ; the  Pastoret  strategos  has  very  disordered  hair,  and  sundry 
realistic  details,  especially  in  the  neck.  An  immediate  development  of  this  tendency  in  portraiture  is  the  Archi- 
damos  {Rom.  Mitth.  iii.  PI.  4),  in  whom  I recognize  the  Archidamos  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  (cf.  infra,  p.  321). 
It  is  not  impossible  that  the  personality  at  the  back  of  these  works  (with  which  many  others  may  be  grouped) 
is  that  of  Demetrios,  the  famous  avOpcc-n-oiroLos,  who  worked  at  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  and  at 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  In  later  antiquity  it  was  a commonplace  of  the  rhetors  (as  appears  from 
Quinctilian  and  from  Lucian,  Philop s.  iS)  to  find  fault  with  Demetrios  as  a realist.  Probably  this  merely  goes 
back  to  some  exaggerated  statement  in  an  Attic  comedy  (it  is  only  necessary  to  remember  the  sentence  passed  by 
the  older  comedy  on  the  realist  Euripides)  ; for  no  artist  can  go  beyond  the  limitations  of  his  time,  and  actually 
realistic  portraits,  as  understood  in  later  days,  would  be  out  of  the  question  at  that  epoch.  The  caricatured 
description  in  Lucian  is  moreover  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  lying  philosopher  Eukrates,  and  cannot  in  the  least 
imply  what  the  moderns  have  taken  it  to  mean. 

3 From  the  wording  it  might  be  only  the  statue  that  was  struck  by  arrows,  but  both  internal  and  external 
evidence  are  against  that  supposition.  Moreover,  arrows  shot  at  the  statue  could  not  stick  in  the  bronze  but 
would  glance  off,  and  the  marks  that  they  would  leave  would  not  be  of  a kind  to  show  what  they  came  from. 

4 Lowy,  Inschr.  Gr.  Bildh.  No.  46,  where  see  all  the  older  literature.  For  the  latest  discussion  of  the  question, 
Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  p.  185  sqq.  (J.  Six),  cf.  infra,  p.  123,  n.  2.  My  earlier  opinion  {Ath.  Mitth.  v.  p.  28),  that — as 
Bergk  first  supposed— the  inscription  referred  to  the  statue  of  Flermolykos  (Paus.  i.  23,  10),  and  that  Pausanias 
was  mistaken  in  identifying  him  with  the  Pankratiast  of  Herodotos,  I now  withdraw  as  improbable  ; for 
Pausanias  could  scarcely  have  overlooked  the  difference  of  the  father’s  name.  Cf.  still  more  recently 
Weizs'acker  in  F/eckeisen's  Jahrb.  1886,  p.  16  seq. 


DIITREPHES 


123 


by  Pausanias.  Certainly  the  son  of  Diitrephes  would  be  the  most  likely  person  to 
have  set  up  the  statue,  since  Diitrephes,  who  was  represented  as  dying,  could  not  well 
have  done  so  himself.  Further,  Ross  also  identified  this  Diitrephes  pierced  with  arrows, 
which  the  inscribed  basis  showed  to  have  been  a work  of  Kresilas,  with  the  wounded 
man  by  Kresilas  mentioned  in  Pliny.  The  one  serious  objection  to  the  theory  is  that 
the  information  given  by  Pausanias  about  Diitrephes  is  impossible  to  reconcile  with 
the  date  of  the  inscription.  According  to  Pausanias,  he  was  a general  in  414  15. C., 
while  the  characters  of  the  inscription  belong  to  a considerably  earlier  date.  Kirchhoff 
accordingly  ( C.I.A . i.  402)  rejected  the  whole  identification.  There  is,  however,  no 
definite  proof  that  the  information  of  Pausanias  really  applies  to  the  Diitrephes  of  the 
Akropolis  statue.  Pausanias  has  evidently  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter,  and 
is  merely  drawing  from  Thucydides  (vii.  29,  30),  where  it  is  narrated  how  Diitrephes 
led  back  the  Thracian  troops  in  the  year  414  and  took  Mykalessos  by  the  way.  This 
same  general  is  again  mentioned  by  Thucydides  (viii.64)  in  connexion  with  the  events 
of  the  year  41  1 : we  know  nothing  about  the  manner  of  his  death.  Clearly  this  man 
cannot  be  the  Diitrephes  of  the  Kresilas  basis.  Thucydides,  however,  also  mentions 
another  and  earlier  Diitrephes  as  being  the  father  of  a certain  Nikostratos  (iii.  75  i 
iv.  1 19,  129),  who  was  an  Athenian  general  at  the  beginning  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  ; 
and  it  is  not  impossible  that  this  father  of  Nikostratos  was  also  father  of  Hermolykos, 
and  therefore  identical  with  the  Diitrephes  pourtrayed  by  Kresilas.  Like  his  son 
Nikostratos,  and  like  his  later  namesake,  he  may  have  been  an  Attic  strategos,  and 
have  been  slain  by  arrows  in  some  engagement  of  which  the  record  is  lost  to  us.  Con- 
sidering the  scantiness  of  tradition  concerning  the  Pentekontaetia , it  is  not  surprising 
that  so  little  should  be  known  of  him  ; but  we  at  any  rate  do  know  that  just  about 
the  time  when  this  elder  Diitrephes  would  be  active  there  took  place  the  last  bloody 
campaigns  against  the  Persian  hosts  and  those  great  expeditions  to  Cyprus  (459 — ■ 
449  B.C.),  in  all  of  which  the  Attic  troops  would  be  brought  face  to  face  with  Oriental 
bowmen.  It  is  certainly  not  difficult  to  believe  that  Pausanias  only  remembered  the 
Diitrephes  whose  exploits  were  recounted  at  greater  length  by  Thucydides,  and  knew 
nothing  of  his  earlier  namesake.1  The  death  of  Diitrephes,  whose  statue  was 
dedicated  to  Athena  by  his  son,  probably  in  fulfilment  of  a vow,  must  have  been 
an  episode  well  known  at  the  time.  The  general,  holding  out  to  the  very  last,  may 
have  secured  privileges  to  his  family  by  his  heroic  death,  and  would  thus  well  deserve 
the  honour  of  a statue  at  their  hands.  Pliny’s  description  shows  that  the  man  was 
actually  represented  as  dying— besides,  any  less  serious  situation  would  have  cheated 
the  sympathies  of  the  spectators.2 

Pausanias  could  not  gather  from  the  extant  inscription  that  Diitrephes  was  the 
name  of  the  wounded  man  : he  either  learnt  it  from  older  literary  sources,  or,  as  seems 
more  probable,  the  name  of  the  person  pourtrayed  was  inscribed  on  the  actual  statue.3 
The  statue  of  the  older  Hermolykos,  the  hero  of  Mykale  (Herod,  ix.  105),  was  on  a 
different  spot  of  the  Akropolis,  nearer  to  the  Parthenon  and  next  to  the  hoplitodrome 
Epicharinos  (Paus.  i.  23,  10).  He  was  probably  represented  as  a victorious  athlete, 
and  his  prowess  in  the  pankration  was  probably  known  to  Herodotos  from  his  statue 
on  the  Akropolis. 

1 Lowy,  loc.  cit.  p.  37,  has  already  hinted  at  this  possibility. 

2 The  purely  arbitrary  theories  propounded  by  J.  Six,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  p.  185  seq. , have  been  successfully 
refuted  by  A.  Gercke,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1893,  p.  113  seq. 

3 So  Myron  inscribed  his  name  on  the  thigh  of  his  Apollo  (Overbeck,  S.  Q.  537).  Since  the  Diitrephes  dates 
about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  it  would  still  come  within  the  limits  of  the  period  in  which  it  was  usual 
to  set  inscriptions  upon  the  statues  themselves.  Cf.  R.  v.  Schneider,  Erzstatne  vo/n  Helenenberge , p.  20. 


KRESILAS 

Prom  the  actual  basis  of  the  Diitrephes  wc 
learn  1 that  the  figuie  was  not  lying  but  standing,2 
and  further  that  the  main  weight  rested  probably 
upon  the  ball  of  the  right  foot,  which  was  drawn 
back  and  fastened  with  a strong  peg,  while  the  left, 
with  the  sole  on  the  ground,  must  have  been  ad- 
vanced. A vase-painting  from  a white-faced  Attic 
lekythos  (Fig.  48) 3 shows  that  the  attitude  was  not 
an  impossible  one  for  a wounded  man.  This  single 
figure  can  well  be  conceived  of  as  a statue.  The 
warrior,  pierced  by  two  arrows,  is  falling  backwards  ; 
he  is  naked,  as  beseems  the  idealizing  treatment  of 
sculpture ; he  only  wears  a helmet,  and  carries 
shield  and  lance.  The  latter  he  holds  still  raised, 
although  it  is  evident  that  he  can  never  drive 
home  another  shaft. 

As  it  is  precisely  among  the  class  of  vases  to  which 
this  lekythos  belongs  that  reproductions  of  statues 
have  been  found,4  it  is  reasonable  to  suspect  one 
here.  The  lekythos,  to  judge  from  its  shape,  is 
almost  contemporary 5 with  the  red-figured  vases 
of  the  fine  period,  and  cannot  therefore  be  much 
earlier  than  about  450  B.C.  Therefore 
it  perhaps  really  gives  us  a free  render- 
ing of  the  actual  statue  of  Kresilas 
directly  after  it  was  set  up.6  The  sculp- 
turesque nudity  of  the  figure  and  the 
uniqueness  of  the  representation  7 both 
favour  this  supposition.  I know  of  f ig.  49. — Gem  in 

. . r -,  Berlin  (slightly 

one  similar  figure  only  (Fig.  49); 8 it  enlarged), 
occurs  on  a gem.  Here  the  warrior  is 
pierced  in  the  breast  by  an  arrow,  the  knees  give 
way,  the  left  hand  holds  the  shield,  the  right  not  a 
lance  but  a sword.  The  gem  belongs  to  a special  kind  of  later  Italian  product, 
closely  connected  with  the  severe  scarab  style  (about  the  fourth  to  the  third 

1 Michaelis,  Ath.  Mitth.  i.  289;  Six,  loc.  cit.  187.  2 Weizsacker,  loc.  cit. 

3 Original  in  Paris,  Cabinet  d.  Med.  ; Luynes,  Vases  Feints,  PI.  16;  photograph  in  Vases  Feints  du  Cab.  d. 

Medailles,  PI.  111  A.  Poor  illustration  (with  the  lightly  incised  inner  lines  left  out),  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892, 
p.  185.  Gercke’s  objections  [Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1893,  113  sqq.)  against  using  the  vase-painting  for  the  recovery  of 
the  statue  are  not  valid,  still  less  so  is  Kekule’s  remark  [Arch.  Ztg.  1893,  76)  that  the  vase  was  too  archaic 
to  be  compared. 

4 Cf.  Loschcke  in  the  Ath.  Mitth.  v.  p.  381  ; PI.  13  ibid,  gives  the  statue  of  a hoplitodrome  on  its  basis, 
which  Loschcke  supposes  may  be  that  of  Epicharinos  on  the  Akropolis. 

5 Shape  and  decoration  are  those  of  the  red -figured  lekythoi  of  the  style  mentioned.  The  eye  is  approximately 
oval.  Helmet  and  shield  are  only  indicated  in  outline.  Just  at  this  time  purely  outline  designs  first  make  their 
appearance  on  lekythoi.  The  incision  of  the  muscles  is  thin  and  light.  Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  1891,  Taf.  ix. 
(Mayer),  p.  307  seq. 

6 Benndorf  made  this  suggestion  some  time  ago,  but  without  publishing  it.  In  the  meantime  Six  expressed 
the  same  hypothesis. 

7 The  wounded  warrior  falling  backwards,  a favourite  figure  of  Duris  and  his  school  (cf.  Robert,  Scenen  d. 
Ilias  ii.  Aethiopis , p.  6 sqq.),  is  similar  and  yet  very  different  : it  shows  what  Kresilas  had  to  work  upon. 

8 Tolken,  Verz.  der  Geschn.  Steine,  iv.  257  ; Winckelmann,  Descr.  iii.  230. 


124 


Fig.  48. — White-faced  Lekythos. 
(Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris.) 


DIITREPHES 


125 


century  B.C.),  and  it  also  may  give  an  indirect  echo  of  the  statue  by  Kresilas.  The 
position  of  the  legs  on  gem  and  vase  corresponds  roughly  with  the  requirements 
of  the  basis  of  the  Diitrephes. 

We  may  further  expect  to  find  traces  of  the  statue  among  the  marble  copies  of 


Fig.  50. — ‘ Gladiatore  Farnese’  in  Naples.  (The  restorations  are  omitted.) 


later  times,  since  it  is  mentioned  by  Pliny  among  celebrated  works,  and  since  it  stood 
in  so  accessible  a spot.  It  has  been  shown  (p.  115)  that  the  statue  must  be  the 
earliest  of  the  works  of  Kresilas  known  to  us,  and  must  be  dated  about  450,  so  that 
it  doubtless  retained  a certain  severity  of  treatment.  All  the  required  conditions  are 
met  with  in  a torso  at  Naples,  there  restored  as  the  so-called  Farnese  Gladiator 


126 


KRESILAS 


(Fig-  50)-1  It  represents  a man  wounded  to  death,  still  standing  upright  on  both 
feet ; the  left  is  advanced  and  flat  on  the  ground,  the  right  is  drawn  back,  and  rested 
probably  only  on  the  ball.  In  order  to  preserve  his  equilibrium,  the  man  places  his 
legs  as  far  apart  as  possible,  yet  it  is  apparent  from  the  bending  knees  and  the 
backward  inclination  of  the  trunk  that  he  is  already  losing  his  strength:  he  will  soon 
grow  faint,  and  in  another  moment  he  must  fall,  for  the  principal  wound  is  near  the 
heart.  Thus  the  breath  is  already  leaving  him  ; the  heaving  breast  and  contracted 
abdomen  show  that  he  pants  for  air.  In  effect,  here  is  a volneratus  deficiens,  in  quo 
possit  mtellegi  quantum  restet  animae , and  the  muscular  man,  almost  exaggerated  in 
his  strength — there  is  a fine  heightening  of  effect  in  so  representing  him — is  the  sure 
prey  of  death. 

The  small  but  fast-bleeding  wounds  on  two  corresponding  places  in  the  right 
and  left  breast  favour  the  supposition  that  they  are  inflicted  by  arrows.  In  the 
bronze  original  actual  arrows  were  doubtless  inserted.  The  equipment  of  the 
warrior  may  be  pictured  approximately  from  the  vase  and  gem  : he  would  wear  the 
shield  on  his  left  arm,  and  carry  either  the  lance  or,  more  probably,  the  sword,  as  on 
the  gem,  in  his  right  hand  ;2  on  his  head  he  would  wear  a helmet.  The  supporting 
tree-trunk  was,  of  course,  absent  in  the  original,  and  the  position  of  the  legs  would  in 
consequence  produce  a much  more  direct  effect. 

A certain  hardness  and  severity  of  style  at  once  strikes  the  eye.3  I he  pro- 
minence of  the  lower  edge  of  the  ribs  and  the  straining  of  the  whole  trunk  are 
true  and  correspond  to  the  situation,  though  the  divisions  effected  by  the  straight 
abdominal  muscles  are  rather  harshly  indicated  ; the  transition  from  the  deltoid  to 
that  portion  of  the  large  pectoral  muscle  that  adjoins  the  clavicle  is  also  character- 
istic, and  not  less  hard  arc  the  nipples  with  their  sharp  rim  (in  the  original  they  were 
doubtless  inserted).  Other  noticeable  features  are  the  stream  of  blood,  which  is 
represented  plastically  and  truthfully,  the  swollen  veins  at  the  birth  of  the  arm,  and 
the  rendering  of  the  navel  with  the  little  skin  round  it.  In  all  these  things,  as  also  in 
the  working  of  the  flesh,  we  recognize  an  artist  striving,  within  certain  limitations 
of  style,  regardlessly  after  realism,  and  expressing  himself  with  force  and  energy  ; 
the  feeling  for  measure  and  repose  is  still  quite  foreign  to  him. 

The  statue  gives  a hint  of  the  master  to  whom  the  youthful  artist  must  have 
attached  himself  in  Athens.  Not  only  does  it  recall  the  descriptions  of  the  Ladas 
who  lost  his  breath,4  but  also  the  Marsyas  of  Myron,  which,  in  the  instantaneous 
attitude  with  legs  wide  apart  and  trunk  thrown  back,  offers  a close  parallel  to  this 
wounded  man.  We  shall  enlarge  upon  these  resemblances  in  a wider  connexion. 

A work  of  decidedly  later  date  presents  so  much  affinity  to  the  one  just 
described  that  it  must  be  mentioned  here.  It  is  a statue  in  the  Vatican  (Fig.  5 1 )'’ 

1 Mttseo  Bonbon.  vii.  Tav.  25  ; Clarac,  870,  2210  ; 872,  2210.  Cf.  Gerhard  and  Panofka,  Neapels  Antike 
Bitdw.  i.  14,  No.  30. 

2 The  gem  is  also  more  faithful  than  the  vase  in  indicating  the  situation  of  the  wound  ; on  the  vase  the  anows 
are  sticking  only  in  the  leg,  because  they  could  not  well  introduce  them  into  the  crowded  upper  half  of  the  pictuie 
without  coming  into  collision  with  arm,  shield,  or  lance. 

3 It  is  especially  marked  in  the  working  of  the  little  tight  curls  of  the  pubes  ; they  recall  the  hair  of  the 
Perikles,  but  have  a still  more  archaic  quality. 

4 Brunn,  K.  G.  i.  264,  relying  on  Pliny’s  description,  laid  stress  on  the  resemblance  between  the  wounded  man 
and  the  Ladas.  Cf.  J.  Six,  loc.  cit.  188. 

5 Sala  della  Biga,  from  the  Villa  Mattei ; Helbig,  329  ; first  published  in  Venuti,  Mon.  Matth.  i.  101 
(here  with  an  older  restoration  ; right  forearm  stretched  forward,  right  foot  placed  on  a flat  rocky  elevation,  the 
support  draped  ; the  left  arm  unrestored);  then  in  Visconti,  Mus.  Pio-Clem.  2,  42;  Pistolesi,  latte.  6,  10,  1 ; 
Clarac,  837,  2099  (the  present  restorations  indicated)  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmaler,  No.  129.  Cf.  Brunn, 
Bayr.  Sitzungsberichte , 1892,  p.  660. 


STATUE  OF  A RUNNER 


i 27 


which  passes  as  Alkibiades.  It  resembles  the  wounded  man  in  a number  of 
characteristic  points,  such  as  the  contracted  abdomen,  the  powerful  chest  that 
expands  in  the  act  of  fetching  a deep  breath,  the  position  of  the  upper  arm,  and  the 
sharp  marking  off  of  the  deltoid  from  the  large  pectoral  muscle.  Also,  so  far  as  the 
indifferent  copy  permits  us  to  judge,  the  indication  of  the  veins  on  the  upper  arm 
and  the  treatment  of  the  flesh  are  similar,  though  more  harmonious  and  less  hard.1 
The  head  is  fortunately  un- 
broken, but  the  greater  part  of 
the  face  (almost  the  whole 
right  side,  the  nose,  mouth, 
chin,  and  the  front  part  of 
the  left  jaw)  is  restored.  What 
remains  shows  unmistakable 
indications  of  being  a portrait. 

The  beard  on  the  left  cheek  is 
very  similar  to  that  of  the 
Perikles,  the  stylistic  treat- 
ment of  the  little  locks  being 
the  same.  The  hair  has  a 
very  individual  character;  it 
is  not  crisp  and  curling  as  in 
the  Perikles,  but  smooth  and 
straight,  and  in  life  was  ap- 
parently worn  cut  short,  not 
parted  but  combed  down  over 
the  forehead.  These  peculiari- 
ties the  artist  has  rendered 
clearly,  without  however  sacri- 
ficing any  plastic  quality  : on 
the  forehead,  for  instance,  the 
hair  lies  full  and  massive,  while 
all  over  the  head  the  separate 
locks  tangle  in  and  out  in  life- 
like confusion.2  The  forehead, 
which  is  prominent  above  the 
eyes  (with  a flat  depression 
in  the  middle),  the  eyes  (the 
lids  unfortunately  are  much 

damaged),3  and  the  rather  thin  cheeks  are  somewhat  less  stylistic  than  in  the 
Perikles,  and  bear  accordingly  a more  individual  stamp,  though  the  difference  is 
not  vital.  The  short  strong  neck,  too,  must  be  a feature  characteristic  of  the  person 
pourtrayed. 

I he  restorer  has  certainly  not  been  happy  in  placing  a helmet  under  the  right 
foot.  A warrior  actually  fighting  may  be  expected  to  have  his  helmet  on  his  head. 


Fig.  51. — Alkibiades  in  the  Vatican.  (Attempt  at  a reconstruction  ; old 
restorations  omitted.) 


1 1 he  realistic  detail  of  the  navel  is  likewise  modified,  and  the  pubes  is  less  strong  : there  are,  however, 
the  same  little  curls,  but  lying  somewhat  smoother  and  formed  more  freely. 

The  hair  at  the  back  of  the  head  is  peculiarly  fine  and  sharp,  consisting  of  flat  meshes,  curved  now  upwards, 
now  downwards. 

3 The  left  eyelid  wholly  ancient,  the  right  partly  so  ; the  eyelids  were  rather  heavily  formed. 


128 


KRESILAS 


From  the  strongly  inflated  chest,  however,  it  seems  more  probable  that  a runner  is 
represented,1  and  that  the  body  was  originally  bent  more  forwards  so  that  the  right 
foot  would  rest  on  the  ground.  The  glance  is  directed  towards  the  goal.  The  turn 
of  the  head  is  amazingly  fresh  and  lifelike.  The  arms  from  the  elbows  were  probably 
both  extended  ; the  right  certainly  so,  as  is  proved  by  a puntello  above  the  hip. 
The  original  was  of  course  of  bronze,  and  did  not  require  the  hideous  support 
between  the  legs. 

To  find  a statue  of  an  athletic  victor  which  is  purely  a portrait  is  very  note- 
worthy. We  know  from  Pliny  that,  in  Olympia  at  any  rate,  those  only  who  had 
won  three  times  were  allowed  the  privilege  of  a portrait-statue.2  Now  at  the  time 
to  which  the  original  of  this  statue  must  be  referred  occurred  the  three  Olympian 
victories  of  the  celebrated  runner — known  to  Plato,  and  through  him  to  later  writers 
— Krison  of  Himera,  who  won  in  the  three  successive  Olympiads  83,  84,  and  85 
(B.C.  440).  It  is  quite  possible  that  his  portrait  has  survived  in  this  statue,  which 
must  in  any  case  have  been  made  soon  after  the  date  of  Krison’s  third  victory,  or 
only  a trifle  later,  since  its  style  is  nearly  allied  to  that  of  the  Perildes. 

In  the  whole  range  of  fifth-century  art  there  are  no  works  with  which  this 
Vatican  statue  is  more  closely  and  narrowly  connected  than  with  those  referred  to 
Kresilas.  We  must  therefore  be  bold  to  rank  it  among  them,  and  to  recognize 
in  it,  as  compared  with  the  wounded  man,  an  advance  on  the  part  of  the  artist  in  the 
direction  of  harmony,  repose,  and  a softer  technique. 


IV.  The  Amazon. 

Besides  the  Perikles  and  the  wounded  man,  the  wounded  Amazon,  the  third 
of  the  celebrated  works  by  Kresilas  mentioned  in  Pliny,  also  survives  in  copies. 

Among  the  several  Amazon  types  preserved  in  statues,  there  are  two  which 
represent  the  heroine  as  wounded.  One  of  these  has  been  generally  attributed  to 
Polykleitos,  for  reasons  so  sound  that  they  need  not  be  even  discussed  ; the  second 
type  however  needs  to  be  studied  all  the  more  closely,  inasmuch  as  the  wound  in 
this  case  is  in  a far  higher  sense  the  fundamental  motive  of  the  statue,  and  accounts 
for  the  title  volnerata.  O.  Jahn  had  claimed  this — the  so-called  Capitol  type — for 
Kresilas,  and  it  is  an  error  of  later  times  to  have  diverged  from  his  view.  The 
external  probability  that  in  the  numerous  copies  of  this  type  we  have  the  volnerata 
of  Kresilas  is  increased  almost  to  certainty — to  such  certainty  as  is  possible  in  these 
matters — by  comparisons  of  style. 

First,  however,  a few  words  must  be  said  concerning  the  much-debated  question 
of  the  ‘ Ephesian  Amazon  statues.’  Polykleitos,  Pheidias,  Kresilas,  and  Phradmon 
were  the  four  sculptors  who,  according  to  the  well-known  passage  in  Pliny,  simul- 
taneously and  in  competition  made  each  an  Amazon  for  the  temple  of  Artemis  at 
Ephesos.  This  statement  has  met  with  undeserved  contempt,  though  it  should 
rather  be  considered  as  confirmed  from  the  fact  that  copies  of  precisely  four  statues 
of  standing  Amazons  still  exist,  which  on  the  one  hand  are  clearly  to  be  referred  to 
four  different  artists,  and,  on  the  other,  are  evidently  closely  connected  by  identical 

1 Cf.  the  statues  of  the  Pal.  Conservat.  Bull.  Mimic.  1876,  Tav.  9,  10  (Helbig,  Museums,  573  575)>  which 

seem  to  me  to  represent  runners,  not  wrestlers.  The  prominent  edge  of  the  chest  shows  the  hard  bieathing. 

2 Statuae  icouicae,  rightly  referred  by  Scherer  to  portrait  features  of  the  face,  De  Olympionic.  Statius , diss. 
Gott.  1885,  p.  9 seq. 


THE  AMAZONS 


I 29 

measurements,1  by  a general  similarity  of  conception  and  of  dress,  and  by  their 
belonging  to  the  same  period  of  art. 

This  important  fact  is  in  my  opinion  beyond  all  doubt.  In  the  first  place,  four 
types  are  preserved,  and  not  three  only,  as  is  generally  supposed.  True,  the  fourth  type 


Fig.  52. — Amazon  in  Villa  Doria-Pamfili.  (Wrongly  restored  as  an  Artemis;  the  right  arm,  the  left  from  the 
middle  of  the  upper  arm,  the  legs  from  the  knee  downwards,  the  dog,  are  modern.) 

exists  only  in  one  copy,  and  that  a mere  torso  (Fig.  52)  ; it  stands  in  the  Villa  Pamfili, 
and  has  been  commonly  and  erroneously  ranked  among  the  replicas  of  the  Polykleitan 
type,2  from  which,  however,  it  is  absolutely  distinct.  It  certainly  comes  nearer  to  that 

1 Length  of  foot  in  the  three  types  — 30  cm.  2 Michaelis ,Jah.rb.  d.  Inst.  i.  16,  H. 

S 


130 


KRESILAS 


type  than  to  any  of  the  others,  but  it  is  somewhat  severer,  and  designed  with  more 
uniform  symmetry.1  This  would  be  in  favour  of  an  attribution  to  Phradmon,  who, 
being  an  Argive,  must  naturally  have  had  points  of  contact  with  Polykleitos.  The 
fact  that  only  one  copy  of  Phradmon’s  Amazon  has  survived,  and  that  this  shows  his 
statue  to  have  been  the  weakest  and  least  original  of  the  four,  not  only  bears  out  the 
judgment  recorded  by  Pliny— according  to  which  his  name  figures  last  in  the  list  of 
competitors — but  also  explains  the  exiguity  of  his  fame. 

It  has  further  been  denied  that  these  four  types  could  have  arisen  in  one  and  the 
same  period,  but  so  far  as  I can  see  without  a shadow  of  proof.  The  Mattei  type  is 
said  to  be  distinctly  later  than  the  others,  yet  the  treatment  of  the  dress  with  its 
girding,  as  well  as  of  the  body,  brings  it  on  the  whole  within  the  same  stylistic  period, 
while  it  bears  every  mark  of  fifth-century  art.  In  fact,  we  have  already  noted  (p.  30) 
that  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  dress  is  very  closely  related  to  that  of  the  torso  of 
the  Medici  Athena,  i.e.  of  the  Promachos.  Unfortunately,  none  of  the  copies  of  this 
type  preserves  the  original  head  ; for  the  head  of  the  Petworth  replica,  which  Michaelis 
took  to  belong  to  the  statue,  is  undoubtedly  foreign  to  it,2  and  may  not  impossibly 
belong  to  the  Phradmonian  Amazon. 

It  has  also  been  denied3  that  Pheidias  and  Polykleitos  could  have  been  working  at 
the  same  period,  although  we  have  the  classic  testimony  of  Plato  to  the  fact.4  In  the 
Protagoras  (p.  31 1 C),  as  is  well  known,  he  brings  in  Polykleitos  and  Pheidias  as  con- 
temporaries, and  in  another  passage  in  the  same  dialogue  (p.  328  C)  he  speaks  of  the 
sons  of  Polykleitos,  and  says  expressly  that  they  are  of  the  same  age  (yXi/ciwrcu)  as 
the  sons  of  Perikles,  who,  as  appears  from  p.  319  E,  is  thought  of  as  still  living.  There 
is  no  doubt  therefore  that,  in  the  eyes  of  Plato,  Polykleitos  belonged  to  the  age  of  Perikles, 
and  that  his  life  and  activity  coincided  with  that  of  Perikles  and  Pheidias.  Now  Plato, 
it  is  true,  was  not  unfrequently  guilty  of  anachronisms  in  matters  of  detail  ; he  seems 
to  have  confused  the  first  and  the  second  stay  of  Protagoras  in  Athens,  and  not  to  have 
known  the  exact  time  when  a certain  comedy  was  performed.  But  it  is  impossible  that 
he  should  have  placed  a celebrity  of  the  first  order  like  Polykleitos  in  quite  the  wrong 
period.  The  supposition  of  Robert,5  that  Polykleitos  worked  about  435 — 390,  and  that 
Plato  in  this  dialogue,  written  probably  before  and  certainly  not  much  later  than  390, 0 
referred  the  sons  of  a still  living  man  back  to  a remote  age,  is  still  less  conceivable. 
No  stronger  witness  than  that  of  Plato  could  be  required  to  prove  that  Polykleitos 
was  a contemporary  of  Pheidias,  even  though  he  doubtless  survived  him. 

Therefore,  far  from  there  being  any  grounds  for  doubting  Pliny’s  story  concerning 
the  Amazons,  the  copies  preserved  of  the  four  types  show  that  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe  it.  The  only  improbable  part  of  the  anecdote  is  the  statement  that  the 
artists  worked  competitively,  and,  as  self-constituted  judges,  determined  the  respective 
merits  of  their  work.  It  is  however  easy  to  see  how  such  a story  may  have  arisen  : 

1 This  is  especially  clear  in  the  folds  between  the  legs  and  the  compact  kolpos  with  its  straight  lines.  Ihe 
motive  was  so  far  similar  to  that  of  the  Polykleitan  Amazon  that  the  right  upper  arm  was  raised,  the  left  lowered. 
But  she  certainly  is  not  wounded,  and  the  left  hand  does  not  seem  to  have  rested  on  anything.  The  chest,  which 
is  quite  covered  by  the  chiton,  corresponds  in  its  broad  outlines  to  the  Polykleitan. 

2 As  Loschcke  and  I ascertained  at  Petworth  in  1888.  Cf.  Arch.  Anz.  1890,  p.  164.  The  fillet  corresponds 
to  the  remains  of  the  head  of  the  Pamfili  statue.  The  character  of  the  head  (Michaelis,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  i. 
p.  27,  ‘Typus  III.’)  would  well  suit  the  Argive  Phradmon  and  the  Pamfili  statue.  Michaelis  lays  stress  on 
the  severe  but  not  melancholy  expression  of  the  face. 

3 Robert,  Arch.  Marchen,  p.  100  seq. 

4 Cf.  Scholl,  Sitzungsberichte  d.  Bayr.  Akad.  1888,  i.  42,  note  1,  5 Arch.  Marchen,  p.  98  seq. 

(l  Bergk,  Griech.  Litteraturg.  iv.  440,  dates  the  dialogue  as  early  as  407  B.c.  Christ,  Platon.  Stud.  p.  46, 
as  late  as  387  b.c. 


THE  AMAZONS 


the  four  statues  probably  formed  together  one  single  offering,  and,  like  similar  groups 
of  the  fifth  century  and  even  later  times,1  they  presumably  stood  side  by  side  upon  one 
large  plinth,  although  each  was  a work  complete  in  itself.  In  addition  to  the  general 
inscription  referring  to  the  whole  set,  the  artist’s  inscriptions  would  be  placed  under 
their  respective  statues.  The  names  being  celebrated,  there  was  only  a step  to  the 
invention  of  the  anecdote  of  the  cert  amen,  which  was  possibly  based  on  some  earlier 
verdict,  current  in  the  Argive  school,  ascribing  artistic  pre-eminence  to  Polykleitos. 

This  offering  would  scarcely  be  made  by  the  Ephesians  themselves,  but  by  some 
rich  man  who  tried  to  get  the  most  prominent  artists  of  the  day.  The  subject,  single 
figures  of  Amazons,  is  fully  explained  by  the  great  importance  of  these  heroines  in 
the  legends  of  the  Ephesian  temple.  According  to  the  earlier  tradition,  it  was  they 
who  founded  the  sanctuary,2  who  set  up  the  miraculous  image  of  the  goddess,  and 
celebrated  her  in  the  dance.3  Later  a particular  Amazon,  Otrera  the  wife  of  Ares, 
was  named  as  founder  of  the  temple.4 

Since  two  of  the  Amazons  are  represented  as  wounded,  it  was  thought  that  the 
commission  must  have  stipulated  for  the  heroines  to  be  represented  as  fugitives  and 
seeking  refuge  in  the  sanctuary,  thereby  recalling  the  tradition  that  the  Amazons 
pursued  by  Dionysos,  and  later  by  Herakles,  fled  as  suppliants  to  the  temple  and 
there  obtained  quarter.  Not  only  however  are  two  of  the  Amazons  represented 
unwounded,5  which  would  alone  suffice  to  disprove  the  proposed  theory,  but  even  the 
statues  of  the  two  wounded  Amazons  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  the  supposed 
situation,  for  they  have  not  in  the  least  the  character  of  suppliants  ; whereas  it  is  the 
seeking  refuge  with  the  goddess  that  is  the  kernel  of  the  tradition  : the  Amazons 
were  imagined  as  actually  seated  upon  the  altar  in  the  manner  customary  with 
suppliants.6  Finally,  that  legend  seems  to  be  quite  late  ; it  is  only  found  in  historians 
of  Imperial  times,7  and  the  story  of  the  pursuit  of  the  warlike  Dionysos,  on 
which  especial  stress  has  been  laid,  was  probably  merely  elaborated  from  the  story, 
originating  after  the  campaign  of  Alexander,  of  the  exploits  of  Dionysos  among 
the  Indians  ; by  analogy  the  god  was  made  to  fight  with  other  wild  races  also, 
such  as  the  Tyrrhenians,  Lydians,  and  Iberians. 

The  commission  seems  only  to  have  stipulated  for  single  figures  of  Amazons,  not 
on  horseback,  but  standing ; they  were  to  be  an  offering  to  the  goddess,  whose 
cult  and  sanctuary  the  Amazons  had  founded.  With  regard  to  such  externals  as  size 
and  dress,  the  artists  probably  came  to  an  agreement  among  themselves,  in  order  to 
avoid  any  great  want  of  harmony. 

The  question  was  how  to  make  an  Amazon,  composed  as  a single  figure,  charac- 
teristic. Legend  invariably  represents  the  Amazons  as  courageous  combatants  ; 
but — after  a brave  resistance — they  are  always  the  vanquished.  To  give  effect  to 
these  two  essential  features,  nothing  could  seem  better  adapted  than  to  represent 
an  Amazon  with  a wound  in  the  breast,  as  becomes  a brave  fighter.  Another 
main  characteristic,  in  the  conception  of  the  fifth  century  at  any  rate,  is  that 

1 Cf.  the  monuments  commemorative  of  battles  set  up  by  Attalos  I.  in  Pergamon. 

2 Pindar  makes  the  Amazons  who  fought  against  Athens  found  the  sanctuary  of  the  Artemis  of  Ephesos 
(Pans.  vii.  2,  7). 

3 Kallim.  Hym.  in  Dian.  237  ; the  Amazons  set  up  the  bretas. 

4 Hygin.  Fab.  223,  224. 

5 The  figure  referred  above  to  Phradmon  is  certainly  not  wounded.  6 Tacitus,  Ann.  3,  61. 

7 The  Ephesians  themselves  refer  to  it  before  the  senate  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  (Tacitus,  Ann.  3,  61). 
Pausanias  cites  the  same  legend  in  order  to  refute  Pindar,  who  had  ascribed  the  founding  of  the  sanctuary  to  the 
Amazons  (Paus.  vii.  2,  7)-  In  Plutarch’s  account  (Quast.  Gr.  56)  the  Amazons,  pursued  by  Dionysos,  flee  from 
Ephesos,  where  they  had  settled,  and  betake  themselves  to  Samos. 


132 


KRESILAS 


they  are  daring  horsewomen.  Though  the  terms  of  the  commission  evidently 
excluded  representation  on  horseback,  this  characteristic  could  still  be  suggested  : 
hence  the  ‘ Mattei  type  ’ — the  Amazon  preparing  to  leap.  The  artist  remembered 

doubtless  the  epithet  iroXvaKapdjos;,  the  strong  leaper, 
applied  in  the  Iliad  (ii.  814)  to  the  Amazon  Myrine. 

Kresilas,  as  Pliny  informs  us,  represented  his 
Amazon  as  wounded.  Let  us  now  examine  more 
closely  the ‘Capitol  type,’  which  must  be  his1  (Fig.  53). 

The  restoration  of  the  statue  proposed  by 
Michaelis  may,  it  seems  to  me,  be  improved  upon  in 
one  important  respect.  Michaelis  restores  the  figure 
as  grasping  the  spear  high  up  with  the  right  hand, 
the  elbow  being  only  slightly  bent.2 3  He  is  guided 
in  this  by  the  Louvre  copy,  in  which  the  right  arm 
seems  to  be  for  the  most  part  antique.  On  looking 
at  the  original,  however,  it  seems  more  than  doubt- 
ful whether  the  pieces  out  of  which  this  supposed 
antique  arm  is  made  up  really  belong  to  the  statue  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  familiar  gem  which  is 
the  basis  for  the  restoration  of  this  type  gives  a 
different  position  of  the  arm,  bringing  the  right  hand 
quite  close  to  the  head  instead  of  far  above  it.  It 
becomes  evident,  on  experimenting  with  a model,  that 
the  attitude  reproduced  on  the  gem  is  not  a caprice  of 
the  engraver,  but  must  have  been  the  original  motive. 
It  is  infinitely  more  natural,  and  affords  a real  sup- 
port, at  the  same  time  producing  a much  finer  and 
more  self-contained  rhythm  than  the  restoration  pro- 
posed by  Michaelis.  In  the  gem  however,  for  want  of 
space,  the  right  hand  is  placed  rather  too  low  ; to  corre- 
spond with  the  traces  of  the  upper  arm  left  on  the 
Worlitz  torso,  the  hand  must  have  had  hold  of  the 


spear  a little  above  the  head  (Fig.  53).  There  is 
thus  presented  a wounded  combatant,  leaning  heavily 
upon  her  spear,  for  the  left  leg  on  which  she  stands 
does  not  suffice  to  support  the  body  ; with  her  disengaged  hand  she  draws  away  her 
dress  from  the  smarting  wound,  and  her  head  is  inclined  wearily  to  that  side. 


1 The  replicas  have  been  carefully  collected  by  Michaelis  (Jahrb.  i.  p.  17);  to  his  list  should  be  added  a 
head,  which  he  excludes,  in  St.  Petersburg  (ibid.  p.  iS,  note  3)  ; it  has  little  interest,  except  as  showing  the  extent 
to  which  a fine  Greek  original  can  be  disfigured  at  the  hand  of  a wretched  copyist.  There  is  at  Dresden  also 
an  old  cast  of  a head  of  this  type,  the  original  of  which  I am  not  acquainted  with  (perhaps  = Michaelis  m. ; cf.  c). 
It  is  a fair  replica.  Finally  the  head  of  the  term  in  the  Villa  Albani  (No.  76)  deserves  notice  ; it  is  nothing 
but  an  adaptation  of  this  type  of  Amazon  to  a decorative  purpose  ; in  these  terms  long  hair  on  the  shoulders  was 
popular,  and  is  accordingly  added,  little  as  it  suits  the  head  ; the  turn  of  the  head  is  also  completely  changed  (cf. 
supra,  p.  66,  note  5).  A similar  transformation  is  seen  in  a head  of  the  Barracco  collection,  also  probably  from 
a term/  One  of  the  best  of  the  copies,  Michaelis  ‘1,’  is  given  in  Fig.  54  from  the  cast  ; the  head  is  wrongly  set 
upon  a statue  of  the  Mattei  type.  It  is  unfortunately  not  perfect,  the  nose,  part  of  the  under  lip,  the  chin,  and 
the  neck  being  restored,  but  even  so  it  is  decidedly  better  than  the  head  of  the  torso  in  Worlitz,  which  hitherto 
is  the  only  one  well  published.  The  best  copy  I know  is  n (Michaelis),  in  the  Conserv.iPal. ; Helbig,  Museums , 579. 

2 See  the  drawing  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  i.  p.  28  ; Helbig,  Museums,  5°3- 

3 Remains  of  a support  on  head  o (Michaelis,  loc.  cit.  p.  18,  33)  show  that  head  and  hand  were  connecte:’. 
I have  not  examined  the  original. 


FiG.  54.  Amazon  head  of  the  Capitoline  type,  wrongly  placed  on  the  Mattel  statue  in  the  Vatican.  (From  the  cast.) 


1 34 


KRESILAS 


The  stylistic  qualities  most  emphatically  confirm  the  attribution  to  Kresilas. 
They  readily  catch  the  eye  on  a comparison  of  the  head  with  the  Perikles.  Above 
all,  the  eye  has  the  same  characteristic  shape,  elongated  and  narrow,  with  thick 
heavy  lids  and  strongly  marked  lachrymal  glands,  met  with  neither  in  Pheidias  nor  in 
Polykleitos.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  distance  between  the  two  eyes  is  greater1 
and  the  root  of  the  nose  rather  broader.  The  replica  given  in  Fig.  54  has  preserved 
in  the  little  folds,  which  run  along  the  rims  of  both  lids,2  an  interesting  detail,  which 
is  slurred  over  in  most  of  the  copies.  In  the  hair  is  seen  the  same  principle  of  plastic 
fulness  as  in  the  Perikles. 

If  the  attribution  of  this  ‘Capitol  type’  to  Kresilas  be  accepted,  its  special 
qualities  may  be  next  applied  to  the  further  characterization  of  that  artist.  They 
are  most  clearly  seen  by  a comparison  with  the  Polykleitan  statue.  The  contrast, 
the  profound  gulf  that  separates  them,  is  well  emphasized  by  Michaelis.3  Kresilas 
has  selected  the  attitude  and  posture  of  his  Amazon,  not  with  an  eye  to  mere  beauty, 
but  primarily  because  he  felt  them  to  be  true  and  appropriate  to  a wounded  person, 
while  Polykleitos  is  entirely  concerned  with  the  beauty  of  the  motive.4  Kresilas  enters 
into  the  feelings  of  the  wounded  woman,  and  works  from  the  spirit  to  the  form. 
Polykleitos  aims  primarily  at  a beautiful  pose  and  pleasing  drapery.  That  this 
contrast  exists  is  undoubted  ; at  the  same  time,  we  must  not  go  too  far,  and  regard 
Polykleitos  as  giving  his  Amazon  a wound  on  the  right  breast  (Fig.  5 5) 5 absolutely 
without  thought.  Certainly  the  wound  would  be  fretted  by  the  raised  arm,  and 
the  pain  only  increased  ; yet  the  artist  may  have  had  in  his  mind  the  true 
Doric  ideal,  an  heroic  maiden  heedless  of  pain  ; he  may  have  intended  to  give 
expression  to  the  constant  Kaprepelv  united  with  the  fullest  ko<t puoTiis  in  bearing 
and  dress. 

It  would  thus  be  his  special  conception  of  the  subject  which  induced 
Polykleitos  to  give  a beautiful  position  to  his  wounded  Amazon,  making  her  support 
herself  as  if  merely  tired,0  with  one  arm  on  her  head  regardless  of  her  wound. 
Besides,  in  the  position  adopted,  resting  on  the  right  leg  and  with  the  head  turned 
to  the  right,  the  artist  has  scarcely  left  himself  an  option  except  to  place  the  wound 
on  the  right  side,  leaving  the  left  completely  secondary  in  importance. 

Polykleitos  represents  the  self-controlled  masculine  woman,  retaining  her  brave 
bearing  even  when  wounded.  Kresilas  represents  only  the  wounded  woman,  natural 
and  human,  giving  way  to  her  pain  and  trying  to  lessen  it.  In  the  details  of  the 
statues  the  contrast  is  strongest  in  the  dress.  The  Polykleitan  Amazon  wears  only 
a short  tunic,  which  leaves  the  powerful  breast  as  free  as  possible  ; but  this  tunic 
is  disposed  in  the  most  elegant  pleats,  and  the  portion  below  the  hips  is  treated  quite 
decoratively.  In  contrast  to  this  elegance,  the  simplicity  of  Kresilas  is  conspicuous. 

1 The  distance  is  34  mm.,  a full  eye-length. 

2 These  small  folds  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  ‘ bronze  technique  ’ of  the  original,  but  are  a mark  of  style. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  fine  groove  round  the  lip  represents  the  edge  which  in  the  bronze  separated  the  inserted 
lips  from  the  rest  of  the  face. 

3 Jalirh.  d.  Inst.  i.  p.  41  seq.  4 Cf.  Kekule,  Idolino,  p.  12. 

6 The  existence  of  the  wound,  as  Michaelis  correctly  infers  from  the  material  at  his  disposal,  can  no  longer 
be  doubted.  For  the  agreement  of  the  copies  makes  it  impossible  to  regard  the  wound,  identically  introduced  in 
all,  as  a capricious  addition  of  the  copyists.  That  some  of  the  copies  omit  the  drops  of  blood  is  assuredly  only 
because  these  were  indicated  by  painting.  In  the  bronze  original  they  must  have  been  rendered  plastically.  The 
bronze  statue  of  the  Chimaira  at  Florence,  whose  antique  Greek  origin  can  now  scarcely  be  doubted,  has  a wound- 
cut  plastically  indicated  with  drops  of  blood,  precisely  like  the  two  wounded  Amazons  (on  the  lion-body  a drop 
of  blood  was  even  especially  let  in  ; it  has  now  fallen  out).  Cf.  also  Fig.  50  and  p.  126. 

6 Michaelis  is  right  in  supposing  the  supporting  pillar  to  be  part  of  the  original.  The  copies  bear  him  out. 
The  whole  attitude  of  the  figure  requires  a support  ; without  one  it  would  fall. 


J 


VIII. 

Amazon . 


LANSDOWNE  HOUSE. 


' 


. 

• * • 


- 


- 

• V • & ' -m.  •'  * / H' 

■ 

**"*■*<*»  •'“* 

■ 


.HIV 


Printed  by  Glesecke  & Devc-iftht,  Leipzig  (Germany). 


THE  AMAZONS 


135 


Here  again  his  first  aim  is  to  be  natural.  The  folds  show  no  artistic  arrangement, 
no  attempt  at  decorative  effect,  but  only  a conscientious  endeavour  to  indicate  the 
character  of  the  material.  Although  the  copies  differ  considerably  in  the  dress,  all 


Fig.  55. — Head  of  Amazon  in  Lansdowne  House.  (From  the  original.) 


reproducing  it  carelessly,1  the  general  character  is  unmistakable.  Note,  for  instance, 
the  simple  straight  folds  falling  from  the  left  breast,  the  kolpos  below  the  belt,  the 
lower  edge  of  the  tunic  cut  off  in  a straight  line,  and  broken  only  in  the  middle  where 

1 The  two  Capitoline  statues  correspond  fairly  well,  but  Michaelis  c is  the  better  copy.  In  the  Colonna 
copy  the  folds  of  stuff  are  altered,  and  made  more  like  those  of  the  Polykleitan  statue.  The  Torlonia  copy 
has  less  severe  drapery  than  the  Capitoline. 


136 


KRESILAS 


the  stuff  is  a shade  drawn  up  in  dainty  folds,1  and  lastly  the  neat  pleats  proper  to  fine 
linen  (cf.  supra , pp.  29  and  46),  which  play  a large  part,  especially  in  the  lower 
portion  of  the  tunic.  The  artist  did  not,  like  the  creator  of  the  Mattel  type,  under- 
stand how  to  combine  with  these  pleats  the  livelier  motive  of  actual  folds,  and  his 
Amazon  appears  in  consequence  the  more  archaic;2  he  sought  to  make  his  drapery 
not  rich  and  pleasing,  but  only  simple  and  true. 

Another  token  of  the  feeling  of  Kresilas  for  sincere  characterization  is  the 
rider’s  cloak  which  he  gives  to  his  Amazon,  to  the  complete  disfigurement  of  the 
back  view,  so  pleasing  in  the  other  statues.  For  it  is  as  the  cloak,  appropriate  to 
horsemen  in  the  fifth  century,  that  we  must  interpret  the  piece  of  drapery  which 
is  fastened  round  the  neck  in  front,  and  falls  down  behind  in  heavy  folds.  As  we 
learn  from  vases,3  this  cloak— which  was  introduced  from  the  north — was  of  heavy 
material  ; and  the  hard,  straight,  almost  ungainly  folds  about  the  neck  in  front 
must  be  taken  therefore  as  true  to  life.  The  Parthenon  frieze,  it  must  be  owned, 
represents  the  rider’s  cloak  much  more  pleasingly.  It  is,  finally,  a delicate  trait 
to  make  the  wounded  Amazon  press  a corner  of  the  cloak  to  her  side  with  her  left 
elbow,  as  though  she  were  cold.4 

On  the  Polykleitan  statue  the  waving  of  the  hair  has  nothing  individual  01- 
characteristic  ; it  was  simply  the  mode  of  the  time,  and  we  find  it  given,  especially 
in  the  Pcloponncsos,  to  the  most  different  women.  The  waving  hair  of  this  Amazon 
of  Kresilas  is,  on  the  contrary,  something  original  and  eminently  characteristic,  that 
we  find  nowhere  repeated  ; at  once  warrior  and  horsewoman,  she  has  cut  off  the  long 
locks  of  her  thick  hair  and  simply  gathered  up  the  shortened  ends  into  a knot — a 
mode  evidently  adopted  without  regard  to  appearance,  but  for  freedom  of  movement 
and  to  save  time  and  trouble.5 

The  mouth  with  Kresilas  is  more  in  the  plane  of  the  face  and  blended  in  a way 
true  to  nature  with  the  adjoining  parts,  while  with  Polykleitos  the  lips  protrude  and 
are  more  strongly  formed  in  order  to  retain  a clear  plastic  shape.  Again,  with  Kresilas 
the  cheeks,  and  still  more  the  nostrils  with  the  adjoining  parts,  are  more  fleshy  and 
living,  and  the  forehead  has  more  modelling  than  with  Polykleitos,  who  makes 
everything  flat  and  abstract.  In  like  manner,  Kresilas  makes  the  breast  more 
fleshy  and  breathing,  while  Polykleitos  lays  special  stress  on  the  strong  bony 
structure.  Finally,  both  heads,  in  accordance  with  the  general  style  of  the 
century,  show  nothing  of  that  contraction  of  certain  muscles  caused  by  pain  ; they 
try  rather  to  express  the  suffering  only  through  the  general  bearing.  Yet  here  again 
there  is  a difference.  The  Polykleitan  head,  apart  from  the  statue,  has  absolutely 
no  indication  of  suffering  ; in  the  Kresilaian  head  the  observer,  even  looking  at  it 
alone,  would  at  once  detect  a certain  nameless  sadness,  which  is  tangibly  expressed 
only  in  the  slight  droop  at  the  corners  of  the  mouth.6 

The  head  of  the  third  Amazon  (‘ Mattei  type’)  is  unfortunately  unknown.  It 
would  be  of  the  greatest  possible  interest  to  bring  it  into  comparison,  for  from  all 
that  has  been  said  it  follows  that,  as  O.  K.  Muller  maintained,  we  have  in  this  statue 

1 This  detail,  which  occurs  in  the  Polykleitan  statue,  may  be  seen  in  Michaelis  c ; in  b,  f,  and  h this  part  is 
restored. 

2 If  the  Amazons  were  not  all  made  in  the  same  year,  this  one,  and  not  the  Polykleitan,  should  be  the  earliest. 

3 Cf.  e.g.  the  interior  of  the  Geryones  Kylix  by  Euphronios. 

4 The  Worlitz  figure  seems  not  to  have  reproduced  this  motive. 

5 Cf.  the  cameo  in  Comm,  in  /ton.  Th.  Mommseni , p.  479  ; the  intaglio  Cades,  iv.  A,  118  ; further,  a beautiful 

carnelian  in  Berlin,  Getnmen,  Inv.  1933  b (head  to  the  right ; fairly  exact  copy  ; indication  of  the  mantle  under 
the  neck).  e Cf.  Michaelis,  loc.  cit.  p.  26  seq. 


THE  AMAZONS 


137 


the  Amazon  of  Pheidias.  The  little  that,  in  addition  to  its  mention  by  Pliny,  we 
know  from  Lucian  of  this  work  goes  to  confirm  this  conclusion.  Lucian  describes 
it,  evidently  to  distinguish  it  from  other  Amazon  statues,  as  the  one  leaning  upon  a 
short  spear,  eVepetSo/u.eV^t'  r<w  SopaTlw.  Now,  as  a fact,  the  Mattei  Amazon  leans 
upon  a lance,1  preparatory  to  swinging  herself  upon  her  horse.  It  is  true  that  the 
‘ Capitol  type  ’ also  leans  on  a spear,  but  in  this  statue  the  wound  is  so  evidently 
the  leading  motive  that  it  would  naturally  give  the  descriptive  title,  while  in  the 
Mattei  type,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  precisely  the  strong  anticipatory  leaning  of  both 
arms  upon  the  lance  that  first  strikes  the  eye  and  is  the  most  noticeable  feature.  It 
has  indeed  been  said  2 that  the  lance  of  the  Mattei  type  could  not  be  described  as  a 
Sopdriov ; but  is  that  term  any  more  applicable  to  the  spear  of  the  ‘ Capitol  type  ’ ? 
And  could  a spear  on  which  an  upright  figure  would  lean  be  anything  materially 
smaller  than  that  required  by  our  Mattei  Amazon  ? By  hopurLov,  then,  Lucian  must 
have  meant  a lance  of  this  kind  ; and  this  is  not  very  surprising,  for  he  was  probably 
mentally  contrasting  it  with  the  Macedonian  lances  5!  metres  long.  Nor  can  any 
exception  be  taken  to  the  expression  ; for  the  Mattei  Amazon  is  leaning 

just  as  much  as  the  wounded  Amazon,  and  is  on  the  point  of  leaning  yet  more 
heavily  for  the  spring,  employing  moreover  both  hands  in  the  action. 

The  Amazon  of  Pheidias  differs  from  all  the  others  in  its  distinctive  motive  ; 
even  the  Amazon  of  Kresilas,  resting  as  she  does  on  one  leg  with  the  other  drawn 
back,  has  less  affinity  with  the  Pheidian  than  with  the  Polykleitan  type.  fThe 
Pheidian  Amazon  is  preparing  to  leap,  and  holds  the  spear  almost  as  required  for 
the  actual  spring,  but  the  left  hand  has  not  yet  tightened  its  grasp,  and  will  have 
to  take  a little  higher  hold  of  the  spear.  The  right  arm  is  restored  by  Michaelis  at 
rather  too  high  an  angle  ; it  would  be  more  natural  for  it  to  come  more  forward  ; the 
spear,  as  the  Mattei  gem  indicates,  was  held  obliquely,  so  that  the  point  came  farther 
to  the  front.  The  left  foot  rests  lightly  on  the  ground,  as  if  feeling  for  a firm  footing. 
On  this  foot  the  run  would  be  started,  and  from  it  the  spring  be  made  on  to  the 
horse — whose  head  must  be  thought  of  as  facing — the  right  leg  being  passed  over  the 
horse’s  back  as  she  swings  herself  into  the  seat.3  In  a similar  way  the  ‘ Diskobolos 
taking  up  position  ’ 4 stands  on  the  left  leg  and  feels  tentatively  with  the  right  before 
transferring  to  it  his  whole  weight.  And  as  in  the  Diskobolos  a whole  series  of 
movements  must  intervene  before  the  throw,  so  in  the  Amazon  before  the  leap.  She 
must  first  raise  the  spear,  tighten  the  grasp  of  the  left  hand,  and  take  the  run  ; then 
set  the  spear  on  the  ground  again  and  make  the  spring.  Her  attention  is  naturally 


1 Michaelis  should  have  emphasized  what  he  says  only  dubiously  (/oc.  cit.  p.  45)  ; a lance  is  proper  to  the 
warlike  Amazon,  and  not  a leaping-pole,  such  as  the  boys  used  in  the  gymnasium  and  palaestra  when  learning 
to  ride  (as  on  the  Attic  Kylix,  Arch.  Zg.  1885,  Taf.  11,'p.  183  ; cf.  also  Holwerda,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  iv.  p.  39). 
On  the  Natter  gem  the  rim  cuts  off  the  design  immediately  above  the  hand,  so  that  the  point  of  the  lance  does 
not  appear.  The  reproduction  in  Overbeck,  Plastik , 3rd  ed.  i.  393,  is  wrong,  for  it  gives  the  staff  as  ending 
off  at  the  top  ; in  the  Natter  design  it  is  cut  through  by  the  rim,  and  thus  incomplete.  This  gem,  a convex  root- 
emerald  ( plasma  di  smeraldo ),  seems  moreover,  according  to  Natter’s  statement,  to  belong  to  a certain  class  of 
stones  especially  in  favour  at  the  time  of  Caesar  and  Augustus,  affording  far  and  away  the  most  numerous 
and  faithful  reproductions  of  statues.  This  class  of  stone  was,  so  far  as  I know,  never  counterfeited  in  the  last 
century.  On  these  grounds,  though  I know  the  gem  only  from  Natter,  I feel  able  to  answer  quite  positively  for 
its  genuineness.  It  is  and  remains  the  solid  basis  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  statue.  A recently  unearthed 
bronze  statuette  in  the  Museum  at  Verona  is  known  to  me  only  through  a photograph  ( Arndt-Bruckmann’s  E.  V. 
No.  8) ; this  suffices  to  show  that  it  is  an  unmistakable  forgery  ; it  is  one  of  a whole  series  of  forgeries  known 

to  me,  which  display  just  such  defects  in  the  casting  as  the  statuette  ; the  head  belongs  to  no  definite  style,  and 
is  quite  without  the  character  of  the  antique  : in  the  right  hand  the  forger  has  copied  the  restored  remains  of  a 
bow  from  the  Mattei  type.  2 Cf.  Michaelis,  loc.  cit.  p.  47. 

3 Cf.  the  Kylix,  Arch.  Ztg.  1885,  Taf.  11.  ■*  Helbig,  Museums,  330;  cf.  sutra,  p.  90. 

T 


KRESILAS 


138 

wholly  directed  to  the  left.  With  this  accords  the  carriage  of  the  head,  which  is 
not  to  the  right,  as  Michaelis  was  deceived  into  thinking  by  the  head  wrongly  placed 
on  the  Petworth  statue,  but  a little  to  the  left.  This  is  fully 
proved  by  the  antique  piece  of  the  neck  remaining  on  the 
Petworth  statue,1  and  also  by  the  half-neck  preserved  in  the 
Turin  replica.2  Directly  it  is  restored  with  the  correct  carriage 
of  the  head,  the  statue  gains  extraordinarily  in  life  and  ani- 
mation (Fig.  56). 

As  regards  the  lost  head,  I cannot  refrain  from  a con- 
jecture which  has  been  gaining  upon  me,  although  sundry 
external  circumstances  are  against  it.  May  not  this  type  be 
preserved  in  that  well-known  bronze  term  which  at  one  time 
stood  in  the  Villa  at  Herculaneum  as  companion  to  the 
Doryphoros  term  (Fig.  57)?  The  carriage  and  turn  of  the 
head  are  not,  it  is  true,  those  required,  for  the  head  turns  a 
little  to  the  right  and  is  set  too  straight  on  the  neck  : we 
know  however  that  the  copyists  were  not  over  particular  about 
preserving  the  carriage  of  the  original,  when  they  adapted 
heads  of  statues  to  the  term-form.  The  Herculaneum  head 
passes  indeed  as  a replica  of  the  Polykleitan  Amazon,3  though 
it  is  sufficiently  extraordinary  that  it  should  ; in  reality  the 
heads  have  scarcely  a superficial  likeness,  and  are  fundament- 
ally distinct,  both  in  the  facial  forms  and  in  the  arrangement 
and  treatment  of  the  hair.  On  the  bronze  head  the  hair  does 
not,  as  in  the  Polykleitan  Amazon,  lie  smooth  upon  the  skull, 
but  forms  a thick,  heavy,  waving  mass.  The  hair  about 
the  forehead,  too,  is  not  rolled  back,  but  simply  combed  to 
either  side.  The  arrangement  at  the  back  is  like  that  of  the 
Fig.  56.— Amazon  type.  (At-  Polykleitan  head,  but  the  execution  is  quite  different.  On  the 

tempt  at  a restoration.)  0|-|ler  hand,  we  find  that  nowhere  can  the  hair  be  better 

parallcled  than  in  the  works  which  we  have  referred  to  Pheidias  : the  way  it  grows 
from  the  parting  is  similar  to  the  Lemnia.  We  may  also  recall  in  this  connexion 
the  girl’s  head  (Figs.  14,  15,  p.  59)  in  which  we  recognized  a youthful  work  of 
Pheidias  ; both  the  hair  and  facial  forms  make  it  clear  that  this  is  only  an  earlier 
stage  of  the  type  given  in  the  bronze  term.  In  the  latter  the  facial  forms,  though 
imperfectly  and  coarsely  rendered  by  the  copyist,4  have  a distinct  Pheidian  character  ; 
the  full  mouth,  with  the  strongly  arched  lips,  is  especially  noteworthy.  Such  a 
mouth  explains  why  Lucian  went  to  the  Amazon  of  Pheidias  for  the  aTo/xaro^ 
dp/xoyrj  of  his  ideal  beauty.  In  this  particular  the  term  may  be  compared  with  the 

3 Cf.  Arch.  Anzeiger,  1890,  p.  164. 

2 In  the  Turin  statue  (Michaelis,  e)  the  lower  half  of  the  neck  is  antique,  and  shows  a slight  turn  to  the  left. 
The  statue — only  the  torso  is  antique — was  a careful  copy  executed  on  a reduced  scale,  about  three-quarters, 
because  of  the  costly  material  (green  basalt).  This  is  exceptional,  for  most  copies  of  statues,  other  than  colossal 
works,  are  either  of  the  same  size  as  the  original  or  quite  small  statuettes.  In  the  other  copies  the  neck  is 
missing.  The  supporting  figure  from  Luku  in  Athens  [Exp.  de  la  Rlorte,  iii.  88 ; v.  Sybel,  Catalogue,  442  ; 
Durm,  Gr.  Baukunst,  2nd  ed.  p.  259),  which  adapts  the  type  to  a decorative  purpose  but  copies  it  badly,  makes 
the  head  look  almost  straight  out,  but  keeps  a slight  turn  to  the  left. 

3 Michaelis,  loc.  cit.  p.  16,  I.  Cf.  P.  Wolters,  Gipsabg.  p.  233. 

4 The  term  is  probably  by  an  artist  inferior  to  the  one  who  signed  his  name  on  the  shaft  of  the  corresponding 
term.  The  hair  is  good,  but  seems  to  have  been  cast  and  put  on  separately.  The  face  is  poorer.  The  eyeballs 
are  restored,  as  is  the  case  in  most  heads  from  Herculaneum. 


* 


IX. 

Head  of  Perseus. 


BRITISH  MUSEUM, 


, m ' fS 

Mm. 


. 


' 


a 

CQ 


a.' 

ci 

3 


X 

£ 


c 

o 

rt 

6 

< 

c 

cj 


o 


3 

^-3 


rt 

s 

<u 


N 

o 


I 

N 

lO 


6 


140 


KRESILAS 


two  heads  in  which  we  conjectured  an  Aphrodite  and  an  Eros  by  Pheidias  (Figs. 
2o,  21,  p.  67  seq.)  The  facial  forms  are  entirely  different  from  the  Polykleitan  type: 
there  are,  for  example,  none  of  the  retreating  planes  so  characteristic  of  both  the 
Amazon  and  the  Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos.  Now,  if  the  stylistic  qualities  of  this 
bronze  term  point  to  Pheidias,  it  is  probable  that  it  reproduces  his  Amazon,  to 
whom  the  powerful  structure  of  the  face  (the  Lcmnia  looks  quite  soft  and  delicate 
by  contrast)  is  eminently  suitable. 

The  Mattei  type  may  then  be  conjecturally  restored  with  a head  of  the  type  of 
the  Herculaneum  bronze,  and  in  it  may  be  recognized  a work  of  Pheidias  (Fig.  56). 

The  dress  of  the  Mattei  type  has  certain  definite  features  that  mark  its  period. 
As  was  seen  above  (p.  30),  it  is  especially  closely  related  to  the  Promachos  (b.C. 
445 — 440),  a work  of  the  Pheidian  school.  The  attribution  to  Pheidias  is  thus  con- 
firmed. But  now  the  possibility  of  more  exactly  dating  the  Amazons  is  brought 
within  our  reach.  Taking  the  Parthenon  as  standard  of  comparison,  we  find  that 
they  coincide,  not  with  the  figures  of  the  pediments,  but  with  the  later  metopes. 
The  Amazons  all  display  a manner  of  indicating  fine  linen  by  parallel  folds  which 
is  not  seen  either  in  or  after  the  Parthenon  pediments.  Kresilas  adheres  most  to 
the  bare  defining  of  the  material  ; Polykleitos  lets  this  fall  into  the  background,  and 
aims  rather  at  beautiful  though  over  symmetrical  folds.  The  Mattei  type,  on  the 
other  hand,  contrives  to  unite  the  folds  indicative  of  the  stuff  with  genuine  folds,  in 
a rich  but  natural  manner  which  recalls  the  linen  chiton  of  the  woman  on  the 
Parthenon  metope,  South  XXIX  (Michaelis). 

The  Ephesian  Amazon  statues  would  thus  date  roughly  about  440,  that  of  Kresilas 
coming  close  to  his  Perikles.  For  Polykleitos  the  date  is  especially  significant, 
for  it  gives  us  a work  by  him  twenty  years  earlier  than  his  gold-ivory  Hera.  The 
Amazon  of  Pheidias  was  a brilliant  achievement  of  the  most  brilliant  period  of  the 
master’s  career.  The  wealth  of  motive  in  the  dress,  which  finds  a parallel  only  in 
the  Parthenon,  and  seems  to  anticipate  the  pediments;  the  original  arrangement  of 
the  garment — the  more  lifelike  and  natural  because  quite  unsymmetrical — so  well 
adapted  to  the  situation  ; the  framework  of  the  body,  so  free  from  stumpiness  or 
heaviness  ; finally,  the  clear  and  freshly  conceived  motive — all  tend  to  give  to  the 
work  the  bold  and  untrammelled  note  which  has  erroneously  been  taken  as  sign  of  a 
later  origin. 

Finally,  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  four  statues  stood  in  the  temple  at  Ephesos, 
no  more  satisfactory  arrangement  can  be  devised  than  to  place  the  Amazon  of 
Pheidias  next  to  that  of  Kresilas,  and  on  its  left  ; the  supporting  legs  of  each  statue 
would  thus  be  on  the  outside,  the  two  spears  on  the  inside,  and  both  heads  would  be 
turned  inwards.  The  Amazons  of  Polykleitos  and  Phradmon,  too  similar  to  look  well 
side  by  side,  would  then  come  at  either  end.  Assuming  this  arrangement  to  be 
correct,  it  might  almost  be  suspected  that  the  anecdote  of  the  evaluation  of  the  statues 
by  the  artists  merely  grew  out  of  the  order  in  which  they  were  placed  : first,  to  the 
left,  would  come  Polykleitos,  then  Pheidias  and  Kresilas,  and  last  of  all  Phradmon. 

We  know  of  only  one  other  figure  of  an  Amazon  famous  in  antiquity — the 
statuette  of  Strongylion,  so  dear  to  Nero.  It  too  appears  to  be  preserved  in  a copy  ; 
for  the  attribution  1 of  a bronze  statuette  of  an  Amazon  on  horseback  to  Strongylion 
is  extremely  probable,  since  that  artist  was  celebrated  for  his  horses,  while  the  style 
of  the  bronze  points  clearly  to  a late  fifth-century  original.2 

1 Apparently  first  expressed  by  M.  Hoffmann,  Philol.  1865,  402  ; cf.  also  Overbeck,  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  Afid , 
note  1 14.  2 Especially  in  head,  hair,  and  drapery. 


ATHENA  FROM  VELLETRI 


141 

The  fact  that  there  are  more  replicas  of  the  Amazon  of  Kresilas  than  of  any  of 
the  others  speaks  highly  for  the  appreciation  in  antiquity  of  the  qualities  peculiar  to 
this  work.  It  has,  in  effect,  a directness  of  sentiment  and  force  of  conception  lacking 
in  the  others.  Kresilas,  living  at  a time  when  Pheidias  dominated  the  artistic  life  of 
Athens,  was  yet  able  to  preserve  a perfect  independence  and  individuality. 


V.  The  Athena  from  Velletri. 

In  presence  of  the  head  of  the  Amazon  attributed  to  Kresilas,  Michaelis  1 felt 
reminded  of  that  famous  type  of  Athena  preserved  in  the  Albani  bust  in  Munich,  and 
in  the  statue  from  Velletri  in  Paris.  He  is  right ; for  this  work  also  may  be  brought 
within  the  range  of  Kresilas. 

The  admirably  preserved  colossal  statue  found  in  a Roman  villa  at  Velletri,  and 
now  in  the  Museum  of  the  Louvre  (Figs.  58,  59), 2 is  the  one  complete  copy  remaining 
of  a magnificent  composition  which  is  generally  taken  as  the  most  perfect  expression  of 
the  character  of  Athena.3  The  goddess  stands  in  a majestic  attitude  ; she  rests  upon 
the  left  foot  and  draws  up  the  right,  which  she  has  moved  rather  to  the  side.  This  side- 
ways position  of  the  free  leg  constitutes  a difference  between  her  attitude  and  the 
simple  walking  motive  of  the  Polykleitan  Doryphoros.  The  same  pose,  designed 
apparently  to  give  greater  breadth  to  the  lower  portion  of  the  body,  and  to  lend  a 
certain  repose  in  the  movement,  was  seen  in  the  Farnese  Athena  in  Naples  (Fig.  26), 
referable  to  Alkamenes.  The  garment,  as  in  the  Lemnia  and  the  Parthenos,  is  the 
Doric  peplos,  and  it  is  similarly  girt  with  a snake  : it  is  not  however  open  at 
one  side,  but  sewn  up  ; the  gorgoneion  on  the  aegis  is  almost  exactly  similar  to 
that  in  the  best  copies  of  the  Parthenos,  though  the  actual  aegis  is  much  narrower 
in  front,  and  resembles  rather  that  of  the  Athena  on  the  west  pediment  of  the 
Parthenon.  The  border  of  snakes  has  of  course  that  richer  form  introduced  with 

1 Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1 886,  i.  27. 

2 Frohner,  Notice  de  la  Sculpture,  No.  114.  The  two  hands  and  the  lower  half  of  the  right  forearm  are 
restored  ; the  rest  of  the  right  arm  is  antique,  but  has  been  twice  broken  ; at  the  right  elbow  there  seems  to  be  a 
bad  join,  the  forearm  was  certainly  more  bent.  The  arm  with  the  nude  part  under  the  armpit  is  antique, 
made  in  a separate  piece.  The  nose  is  intact.  The  statue  is  made  of  coarse-grained  ‘ Thasian  ’ marble. 
There  are  two  copies  of  the  torso  in  the  form  of  statuettes:  (a)  Broadlands  (Michaelis,  p.  225,  No.  31)  ; (b)  in 
the  Pal.  Conservat.  Rome.  The  head  by  itself  is  preserved  in  several  replicas  : (a)  the  famous  Albani  bust 
at  Munich  (Glypt.  92),  the  head  of  which  is  thought  to  be  better  than  that  of  the  Paris  statue  ; certainly  the  work 
is  rather  more  animated  and  less  dry,  but  for  fidelity  in  detail  the  statue  may  claim  the  advantage.  This  appears 
from  a comparison  even  of  the  accessories  ; such  as  the  aegis,  which  in  the  statue  displays  a much  richer  trimming 
of  snakes,  and  the  gorgoneion,  which  in  the  statue  is  more  severely  and  evidently  more  faithfully  modelled.  In 
the  form  of  the  eyes  and  of  the  mouth  too  the  Velletri  replica  is  the  more  reliable  ; the  mouth  is  more  austere  and 
less  soft  and  fleshy  than  in  the  Albani  bust  ; (< b)  in  the  Berlin  collection  (Skulpt.  79)  ; it  is  of  inferior  workmanship, 
yet  it  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  statue  in  the  formation  of  eyes  and  mouth,  and  in  this  respect  is  better  than  the 
Albani  bust  ; (c)  poor  and  hastily  worked  replica  in  St.  Petersburg  (Guedeonow,  A/us.  de.  Sc.  176  ; (d)  in  Lans- 
downe  House  (Michaelis,  p.  469,  No.  93) ; ( e ) Brit.  Mus.  ( Anc . Alarbles,  i.  1)  ; (f)  in  Madrid  (Hiibner,  No.  92). 
Finally  there  is  a seventh  reproduction,  without  value  for  the  knowledge  of  the  original,  but  interesting  in  another 
respect — i.e.  ( g ) it  is  the  head  from  the  monument  of  Eubulkles  in  Athens  (Atk.  Mitth.  1882,  Taf.  5),  originating 
therefore  somewhere  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  It  is  not  a copy  in  the  same  sense  as  the  others, 
for  the  artist  intended  the  work  to  pass  as  his  own,  and  only  fell  back  upon  an  older  original  from  want  of  inventive 
faculty.  Incapable  however  of  entering  into  its  special  character,  he  brought  in  contributions  from  his  own 
style,  and  his  reproduction  is  thus  only  a travesty  of  the  original.  At  that  period  real  copying,  as  understood  in 
Roman  times,  was  unknown,  as  is  proved  by  the  Pergamene  imitations  of  older  statues  (cf.  p.  27)  : these  are  never 
close  copies.  For  the  monument  of  Eubulides  cf.  the  researches  of  Milchhofer,  which  settle  the  question  [Arch. 
Stud.  H.  Brunn  dargeb.  1 893,  p.  44  seq. ) 

3 Ottfr.  Midler  ( Handb . § 369)  describes  the  ideal  of  Athena  from  this  work. 


Fig.  58. — ‘Pallas  de  Velletri’  (Paris) 


ATHENA  FROM  VELLETRI 


*43 


the  Parthenos  (cf.  p.  i i).  The  snakes  along  the  upper  border  of  the  aegis  are  an  inno- 
vation.1 A cloak  of  the  same  heavy  woollen  material  as  the  peplos  lies  over  the  left 
shoulder  and  is  wound  round  the  body  below  the  waist,  falling  in  a great  three- 
cornered  drapery.  The  artist  has,  it  seems,  borrowed  this  mode  of  wearing  a cloak 
from  male  figures  like  Zeus  ; 2 and  to  it  is  due  a good  deal  of  the  majestic  impression 
produced.  The  head  is  nearly  erect,  and  has  a scarcely  perceptible  turn  to  the  side 
of  the  supporting  leg — a turn  which  enhances  the  repose  and  grandeur  of  the  figure. 
With  a lance  in  her  right  hand,  held  obliquely  and  grasped  high  up,  not  in  the  least  as 


Fig.  59. — Head  of  Athena  from  Velletn. 


if  she  required  support,  she  displays  the  serene  dignity  of  her  godhead  without  any 
touch  of  pathos.  In  strong  contrast  to  the  right  arm,  the  left  lies  close  to  the  side 
with  the  hand  held  out,  as  if  to  carry  an  object  of  a certain  weight.  It  has  been 
conjectured  that  this  must  have  been  a Nike  which  Athena,  goddess  of  victory, 
would  here,  like  the  Parthenos,  carry  as  her  co-ordinate  daemon  ; and,  in  effect, 
this  conjecture  has  been  confirmed  by  an  Athenian  bronze  coin  (PI.  VI.  30), 3 which 
evidently  reproduces  the  type  of  our  statue.  This  coin  is  significant,  too,  as  teaching 

1 Cf.  Puchstein,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  v.  85,  note  20. 

2 For  the  rare  instances  in  early  times  of  Athena  wearing  a mantle,  cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon  d.  Myth.  i.  696. 

3 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm,  on  Pausanias,  PI.  Z.  22,  p.  133. 


144 


KRESILAS 


that  the  original  of  the  statue  stood  in  all  probability  at  one  time  in  Athens  ; 
for  it  is  known  that  the  types  of  the  gods  on  these  later  Athenian  bronze  coins 
were  as  a rule  taken  from  famous  works  of  art  in  the  city.  The  fact  that  later 
the  Athenian  Eubulides  took  this  statue  as  model  is  also  in  favour  of  this 
supposition. 

The  general  qualities  both  of  dress  and  head  prove  beyond  doubt  that,  as  is 
almost  universally  admitted,  the  statue  must  belong  to  the  great  second  half  of  the 
fifth  century.  Pheidias  himself  has  been  thought  of,1  but  our  present  knowledge 
of  that  master  quite  excludes  this  notion.  The  Velletri  type  is  quite  foreign  to 
all  the  representations  of  Athena  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  Pheidias  and  his 
school,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  absolutely  no  ground  to  take  it,  as  some 
have  wished,  as  Polykleitan.2  Nor  can  so  thoroughly  individual  a work  be  brought 
under  the  rubric  of  a school. 

The  original,  as  already  noted,  stood  probably  in  Athens.  The  snake  girdle  and 
the  arrangement  of  the  folds  about  the  girdle  show  further  that  the  artist  must  have 
been  acquainted  with  the  Parthenos,  while  the  narrowness  of  the  aegis  suggests  that 
the  figure  can  scarcely  be  earlier  than  the  Parthenon  pediments.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  treatment  of  the  lower  folds  of  the  chiton,  between  the  cloak  and  the  feet,  shows 
that  we  may  scarcely  venture  to  exceed  that  date  ; 3 indeed,  from  the  folds  alone 
the  statue  would  have  to  be  dated  much  earlier.  They  are  in  reality  treated  in  a 
pre-Pheidian  manner  : they  are  very  uniform  and  not  deep,  and  the  ridges  are  for 
the  most  part  simply  rounded  ; the  style  of  Pheidias,  even  in  the  Lemnia,  was  more 
advanced.  On  the  right  side,  the  seam  which  holds  together  the  peplos  is  indicated 
in  the  same  realistic  manner  as  in  an  extant  original  statue  (probably  Parian)  of  the 
severe  style  (about  460 — 450).4  The  dress,  finally,  is  not  allowed  to  fall  over  the  foot 
of  the  supporting  leg,  as  in  later  Pheidian  works.  The  head  contrasts  strongly  in 
shape  of  helmet-  and  type  of  countenance  with  that  ideal  of  Athena  which  the 
influence  of  Pheidias  and  his  circle  impressed  upon  the  Athens  of  the  second  half  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  which,  as  we  learn  from  many  minor  works  of  art,  had  a wide- 
spread popularity  up  to  the  times  of  Alexander.5  The  Pheidian  Parthenos  and  her 
derivatives  have  full,  well-rounded  features,  surmounted  by  the  round  Attic  helmet, 
which  like  the  hair  is  treated  decoratively.  Our  statue,  on  the  contrary,  wears  the 
Corinthian  helmet,  and  displays  a complete  neglect  of  the  decorative  element  in 
helmet  as  in  hair  ; the  bony  structure  of  the  face  is  clearly  apparent,  the  expression 
is  full  of  mature  gravity,  as  beseems  the  thoughtful  goddess.6  The  artist  found  the 
elements  which  he  thus  embodied  ready  to  hand  in  the  Peloponnesian  art  of  the 
severe  style  ; 7 by  deepening  and  expanding  them,  he  created  a type  which  has  never 
been  surpassed.  The  forehead  is  high  in  the  middle  (the  only  statue  that  comes  near 
to  it  in  this  respect  is  the  Farnese  Athena),  and  broad  above  the  eyes.  The  cheek- 
bones are  not  very  prominent,  but  the  chin  is  strong  and  bony,  and,  in  profile,  the 

1 Thus  Wieseler,  Denkm.  d.  Kunst,  ii.  144  ; Botticher,  Verz.  d.  Abgiisse , No.  672. 

2 So  Wolters,  Gibsabg.  p.  552,  225  ; also  Kekule,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1868,  p.  318,  by  false  analogy  with  the 
‘ Hera  Farnese  for  the  latter  work  cf.  infra , p.  223,  n.  1. 

3 Cf.  Puchstein,  Jalu-b.  1890,  p.  85,  who  calls  it  a ‘ little  later  than  the  Parthenos.’ 

4 In  the  Villa  Ludovisi,  Schreiber,  29  ; Helbig,  889  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  357.  Braun  ( Ruine 
and  Museen,  p.  594)  noticed  the  same.  Cf.  Arch.  Stndien  H.  Brunn  dargeb.  1893,  p.  81,  note  62. 

5 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  697,  700  seq. 

6 Cf.  Feuerbach,  Griech.  Plastik,  ii.  23  ; describes  the  Albani  bust  as  ‘ pure  abstract  thought  in  embodied 
marble.’ 

7 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.,  loc.  cit.  The  relief  of  the  Akropolis  ( subra , Fig.  4)  shows  Peloponnesian  influence 
in  the  head. 


ATHENA  FROM  VELLETRI 


145 


under  jaw  is  very  marked.  The  hair  is  smoothed  back  in  the  plainest  and  most 
unpretentious  way. 

It  again  follows  from  all  this  that  the  artist,  living  in  Athens  during  the  thirty 
years  of  Pheidian  supremacy,  must  have  preserved  a perfectly  independent  line,  which 
left  him  free  to  give  a characteristic  colour,  derived  from  Peloponnesian  influences, 
to  his  conception  of  Athena. 

Sundry  details  lead  yet  further.  If  a cast  of  the  fiead  of  the  Velletri  statue  be 
compared  with  the  Pcrikles  bust,  the  similarity  is  quite  striking  in  many  particulars, 
but  especially  in  the  formation  of  the  eyes  ;x  both  have  the  long  narrow  slit  and  the 
singularly  thick,  substantial  lids.  To  this  must  be  added  that  the  helmet  of  the  Athena 
resembles  that  of  the  Perikles  down  to  the  smallest  detail  ; and  since  the  Corinthian 
helmet  admits  of  great  diversity  of  treatment  in  the  detail — as  is  proved  by  examina- 
tion of  other  heads  of  Athena  and  of  strategoi,  in  all  of  which  the  helmet  differs 
somewhat  from  that  on  the  two  heads  under  discussion — this  resemblance  may  serve 
as  clue  to  guide  us  to  Kresilas. 

The  relation  of  the  head  to  the  Amazon  has  been  already  justly  observed  by 
Michaelis.  It  appears  quite  clearly  in  the  eyes,  in  the  mouth,  and  in  the  profile  ; the 
delicate  modelling  of  the  brow,  too,  is  similar  ; parallel  with  the  clear-cut  eyebrows 
there  is  a flat  depression  which  disappears  in  the  centre  where  the  forehead  becomes 
a trifle  prominent.  The  simple  compact  folds  of  the  woollen  ricling-cloak  worn  by 
the  Amazon  admit  of  direct  comparison  with  the  cloak  of  Athena;  further,  the  severe 
pleats  in  the  linen  chiton  of  the  Amazon — the  uniformity  of  the  folds  and  the  level 
termination  of  the  lower  edge,  the  fundamental  sacrifice  of  all  mere  decorative  effect 
to  the  true  rendering  of  the  stuff — are  characteristics  that  reappear  in  the  woollen 
garments  of  the  Athena.  A certain  greater  freedom  and  boldness  in  the  execution 
of  the  Athena  may  be  explained  by  its  being  later  than  the  Amazon  : it  cannot  how- 
ever have  been  much  later,  and  must  have  been  executed  while  the  artist  still  lived 
in  Athens,  previous  to  B.C.  430. 

We  may  reasonably  expect  to  find  some  trace  of  so  signal  a work  in  literary 
tradition,  and  I believe,  in  effect,  that  it  is  actually  mentioned  by  Pliny  among  the 
works  of  Kresilas.  Directly  after  naming  the  wounded  man  and  the  Perikles  of  Kresilas, 
Pliny  makes  an  additional  statement  and,  drawing  apparently  from  a Roman  source,2 
mentions  in  terms  of  the  highest  admiration  a Minerva  and  an  altar  in  the  harbour  of 
Athena,  in  the  great  and  splendid  sanctuary  of  Zeus  Soter — naming  as  the  artist  a 
certain  wholly  unknown  Cephisodorus.3  That  sanctuary,  the  Disoterion,  has  been 
reasonably  assumed  to  be  contemporary  with  the  superb  laying  out  of  the  Peiraieus 
by  Hippodamos  in  the  days  of  Perikles,4  and  it  is  only  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
great  cultus-statue  and  the  altar  were  set  up  at  the  same  time,  presumably  by  an 
artist  from  the  entourage  of  Perikles.  Now  the  original  of  the  Velletri  statue  would 
be  admirably  adapted  to  Athena  Soteira,  the  powerful  and  wise  protectress,  who 
would  certainly  be  represented  in  a colossal  statue  and  would  very  probably  carry 
a Nike,  to  whom  sacrifices  were  offered  in  conjunction  with  Zeus  and  Athena  ;5 

1 The  other  copies  of  the  Athena  have  lost  the  characteristic  formation  of  the  eyes.  This  is  especially  the 
case  in  the  Albani  bust ; the  Berlin  copy  is  better. 

2 Cf.  Oehmichen,  Plinianische  Studien,  p.  151,  who  suggests  Varro  or  Mucian. 

3 Thus  the  MSS.  The  modern  reading  Cephisodotus  is  a mere  conjecture.  Pliny  treats  of  the  two 
Cephisodoti  in  quite  another  connexion  under  the  heading  of  those  artists  who  ejusdem  generis  opera  fecenmt. 

4 Wachsmuth,  Stadt  Athen,  ii.  141  seq.  ; cf.  i.  560. 

5 Cf.  Wachsmuth,  loc.  cit.  ii.  144.  Pausanias  (i.  r,  3)  mentions  a sceptre  and  a Nike  for  Zeus,  only  a 
lance  for  Athena,  but  this  does  not  exclude  a Nike.  Milchhofer,  too,  in  Arch.  Studien  II.  Brunn.  dargebr. 
1 893,  p.  48,  note  2,  interprets  the  Velletri  statue  as  Soteira,  but  1 think  he  is  quite  wrong  in  detecting  in  it  the 
style  of  Kephisodot  os. 

U 


146 


KRESILAS 


while  it  would  be  excellently  appropriate  for  Eubulides  to  have  derived  his  Paionia, 
the  goddess  of  healing,  from  the  Soteira,  the  saving  goddess.  It  seems  not  impossible 
that  Pliny  intended  this  addition  for  Kresilas — from  the  list  of  whose  works  it  is 
divided  off  only  by  the  word  Cephisodorus.  It  has  perhaps  taken  the  place  of  some 
work  by  Cephisodorus  which  stood  originally  under  his  name.1  With  Pliny’s  method 
of  writing,  this  is  only  too  possible  ; and  it  may  at  least  be  surmised  that  the  Athena 
of  Kresilas,  which  we  have  been  describing,  is  no  other  than  the  Soteira  of  the 
Peiraieus. 

What  is  however  certain  is  that  this  noble  creation  of  Athena  affords  a new 
proof  of  the  capacity  of  Kresilas — by  independent  absorption  in  his  task — to  work 
from  the  spirit  to  the  form,  and  so  to  create  the  permanent  and  the  enduring. 


VI.  The  Diomede. 

The  series  of  works  that  may  be  linked  on  to  the  Perikles  and  the  Amazon  can  be 
considerably  enlarged.  A chief  addition — -a  work  of  extraordinary  force  of  invention 
— is  the  Diomede  of  Munich.  Flasch  and  Brunn  have  recently  emphasized  the  close 
connexion  of  this  work  with  the  ‘ Alkibiades  ’ of  the  Vatican  ( supra , p.  127,  Fig.  51),  and 
point  out  the  ‘absolutely  identical  artistic  spirit.’ 2 And  I know,  on  the  other  hand, 
from  personal  communication,  that  Loschcke  and  Studniczka  have  anticipated  me  in 
the  conjecture  that  we  have  here  a work  of  Kresilas.3  The  confidence  with  which  I 
include  it  in  my  list  is  increased  by  this  community  of  opinion  with  other  scholars. 

The  reproductions  of  the  statue  in  Figs.  60,  61  are  taken  from  the  latest  casts, 
from  which  the  restorations  have  been  removed  ;4  only  the  lower  end  of  the  garment 
in  front  remains  to  be  discounted.  There  is  a replica  in  the  Louvre,5  but  it  is  very 
inferior  to  the  Munich  statue,  and  displays  the  carelessness  of  the  copyist,  especially 
in  the  head,  where  the  variations  from  the  Munich  replica  are  of  no  import  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  original,  being  purely  due  to  neglect  of  detail — the  hair  in 
particular  is  flatly  and  dully  rendered.  The  head  has  been  broken  off  and  unskil- 
fully replaced  with  the  help  of  plaster,  but  it  belongs  indubitably  to  the  statue — 
which  has  the  further  advantage  of  being  preserved  to  below  the  knees.  It  can  be 
seen  that  the  left  leg  was  drawn  back  in  the  walking  attitude  ; by  the  side  of  the 

1 A few  paragraphs  further  (xxxiv.  § 79)  Urlichs  has  noticed  that  the  Autolykos  of  Lykios  seems  to  have  got 
among  the  works  of  Leochares.  The  Tyrant-slayers  are  introduced  by  Pliny  in  the  same  book  under  Praxiteles 
(34,  70)  and  under  Antignotus  (34,  86).  It  is  probable  that  both  notices  are  wrong,  and  that  the  ‘ Tyrant-slayers  ’ 
belong  to  Antenor  and  Kritios  (cf.  Benndorf,  Annali,  1867,  306). 

2 Flasch,  V or t rage  in  der  41  Pliilologenversammlung,  1891,  p.  9;  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  p.  660, 
673- 

3 This  was  communicated  to  me  by  Loschcke  in  the  summer  of  1890  at  Bonn,  where  on  seeing  the  cast  of 
the  figure  I became  convinced  that  it  belonged  to  the  circle  of  Kresilas. 

4 Cf.  Brunn,  Glypt.  162;  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  p.  651  seq.  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmaler , No.  128. 
The  statue  first  appears  in  Lafrerie,  Spec.  77  ‘ Romae,’  placed  in  a niche.  It  shows  here  an  older  restoration,  which 
is  to  be  seen  also  in  Bracci,  Memorie  d.  Incisori,  i.  Tav.  23.  The  left  foot  is  wrongly  restored  as  if  placed 
flat  on  the  ground,  and  a cuirass  is  used  as  support  for  the  right  leg.  The  Nike  on  the  left  hand  proves  the 
identity.  Bracci  calls  it  ‘gladiator  victor  ’ in  the  possession  of  Verospi.  The  present  restoration  was  probably 
made  for  the  Albani  collection.  An  older  cast  of  the  bust,  probably  made  when  the  statue  was  in  the  Musee 
Napoleon,  is  now  in  the  Ecole  des  Beanx-Arts,  Paris  (No.  2739) ; another  copy  of  the  same  is  in  Bonn  (wrongly 
designated  by  Welcker  as  1 Biiste  im  Vatikan  ’). 

5 In  the  Salon  du  Mars  Borghese  (No.  2138) ; Frohner,  Notice,  No.  128  ; Bouillon,  iii.  Statues,  PL  2,  3 ; Clarac, 
PI.  314,  1438.  Photograph  edit.  Giraudon,  No.  1402.  Kalkmann  is  wrong  in  supposing  ( Gesichtsprop . p.  34) 
that  the  body  is  not  genuine  : there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  head  and  body  belong  together. 


THE  DIOMEDE 


147 


supporting  leg  the  copyist  has  used  a tree-stem  as  a prop.1  The  naked  body 
corresponds  closely  with  the  Munich  statue,  but  sheath  and  sword-belt  are  omitted. 
Since  the  belt  in  the  Munich  statue  is  treated  in  a manner  quite  at  variance  with 
the  general  style,  and  is  thoroughly  Graeco-Roman  in  character  (it  is  shaped 


Fig.  60. — Diomede  in  Munich.  (From  a cast  with  the  modern  restorations  omitted.) 


like  a scarf,  fastened  with  effective  loops,  and  finishes  off  in  a fringe),  the  assumption 
that  it  is  an  addition  of  the  copyist  is  on  the  face  of  it  probable  ; it  is  yet  further 
assured  by  the  Paris  replica.  In  this  replica  the  two  little  flat  cross  folds  which 
in  the  Munich  statue  appear  on  the  garment,  above  the  remains  of  a support,  are  also 

1 The  upper  part  is  antique. 


148 


KRESILAS 


omitted  ; folds  of  this  kind  are  also  peculiar  to  Graeco-Roman  style.  The  whole 
treatment  of  the  drapery  on  the  shoulder  is  somewhat  simpler  in  the  Paris  replica, 
with  less  striving  after  effective  depth  and  with  more  severity  of  treatment.  In  this  it 
is  evidently  the  more  faithful  of  the  two.  From  the  absence  of  the  sword,  however,  it 
need  only  be  concluded  that  the  sword  of  the  original  was  not  fashioned  like  that  of 
the  Munich  replica,  and  not  necessarily  that  there  was  no  sword  at  all,  for  it  is  known 
positively  that  in  the  earlier  Greek  works  objects  of  this  kind  were  always  put  on 
separately.  A real  belt  and  sheath,  put  on  to  the  original  bronze,  presented  the 
copyist  with  no  art-form  that  could  be  imitated  : if  he  wished  to  introduce  that  addition 
into  his  copy  at  all,  he  had  to  invent  one  for  himself,  as  did  the  Munich  copyist. 
It  is  impossible  to  know  whether  the  Paris  replica  may  not  have  had  a sword-belt  of 
some  other  material  put  on,  for  the  falling  portion  of  the  drapery,  which  might  have 
shown  traces  of  the  fastening,  is  not  antique.1  The  copyist  of  the  Harmodios  (Naples) 
hit  upon  a middle  course,  replacing  the  real  sword-belt  of  the  bronze  original  by  a 
painted  one,  and  adding  a sheath  of  other  material.  An  instance,  corresponding  to 
the  Munich  Diomede,  of  the  plastic  fashioning  of  the  sword-belt  in  a form  selected 
by  the  copyist  is  met  with  in  a replica  of  the  Borghese  Ares  at  Dresden,2  which  has 
a sword-band  adorned  with  sprays,  omitted  in  the  other  copies  ; it  is  to  be  assumed 
that  here  also  the  original  wore  a real  sword-belt. 

The  Munich  copyist  has  thus  sought  to  heighten  the  effect  of  the  original,  and 
to  suit  it  to  later  taste,  by  the  execution  in  marble  of  the  sword-belt  and  by  the  slight 
change  in  the  dress.  Other  details  fit  in  very  well  with  this.  The  hair  is  very  care- 
fully worked,  and,  far  from  its  being  smoothed  over  through  carelessness,  as  in  the  Paris 
copy,  there  is  an  attempt,  just  as  in  the  folds,  to  give  by  deeper  cutting  an  effect  of 
light  and  shade  stronger  than  in  the  original.  This  is  proved  by  a third  copy,  known 
only  from  an  old  cast  of  the  Mengs  Coll,  in  the  Dresden  Museum  (Fig.  62).  This 
cast,  though  in  the  form  of  a bust,  is  obviously  taken  from  a statue.  The  head,  as 
can  still  be  recognized,  has  been  broken  off  and  replaced.  I have  at  last,  after  a long 
search,  found  a trace  of  the  lost  original : the  cast  is  evidently  from  the  statue  which 
Cavaceppi  {Race.  i.  9)  describes  as  being  in  London  in  the  possession  of  1 Enrico  Jen- 
nings ’ ; and  it  was  doubtless  taken  when  the  figure  was  still  in  Rome.3  According  to 
Michaelis,4  the  Jennings  collection  was  sold  later  by  auction,  and  the  statue  in  question 
— described  by  Cavaceppi  as  an  1 Atleta  ’ — came  into  the  possession  of  Lord  Cadogan. 
Doubtless  it  is  still  in  England.  Now  this  third  replica  seems  to  be  the  best  preserved 
and  the  most  faithful  in  style.  The  legs  appear  to  be  in  the  main  antique  ; they 
have  at  any  rate  the  correct  walking  attitude  and  the  right  proportions  ; beside  the 
right  leg  a tree-stem  again  appeal's  as  support.  The  garment  seems  to  be  perfectly 
preserved  in  this  replica  only;  it  hangs  to  the  knees  in  simple  broad  folds.  Both 
arms  are  apparently  restored  from  the  elbows.  The  sword-belt  is  again  absent,  which 
strengthens  the  supposition  that  in  the  Munich  replica  it  is  an  addition.  The  head 
can  be  closely  compared  with  help  of  the  cast.  At  first  sight  the  hair  looks  very  different 
from  that  of  the  Munich  replica,  but  on  a closer  examination  it  is  seen  that — with  very 
slight  variations — it  corresponds  lock  for  lock,  and  that  a difference  exists  only  in  the 

] In  front  only  the  upper  part  lying  on  the  shoulder  and  breast  is  antique  ; at  the  back  the  falling  end. 

2 Becker,  August eum,  Taf.  35. 

3 Winckelmann  knew  the  figure,  and  mentions  it  with  the  Albani  statue  (now  in  Munich)  in  Hist,  of  Anc. 
Art.  Bk.  v.  chap.  5,  § 35  ( =tr.  Lodge,  ii.  399)  on  account  of  the  crushed  ears.  His  statement  that  the  Jennings 
statue  was  formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Verospi  is  wrong.  The  Jennings  statue  came  from  Cavaceppi.  According  to 
Bracci,  it  was  the  Albani  statue  that  was  formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Verospi. 

4 Anc.  Sculpt,  in  Gr.  Brit.  p.  93,  note  242. 


THE  DIOMEDE 


149 


working ; in  the  Munich  head  the  marble  is  deeply  dug  out  round  each  lock, 
while  the  numerous  flatly  chiselled  inner  lines  of  the  cast  are  replaced  by  fewer 
and  more  deeply  cut  lines.  The  difference  is  naturally  far  more  obvious  in  the  thick 
hair  of  the  head  than  in  the  little  flat  curls  of  the  beard.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  in  the  rendering  of  the  hair  the  Dresden  cast  is  more  faithful  to  the  original  than 
the  Munich  statue ; the  latter  is  evidently  a further  development  of  some  original  in 
which  the  hair  must  have  looked  very  like  that  of  the  Dresden  head.  The  piece  of 
drapery,  which  in  its  main  outlines  corresponds  to  the  Munich  copy  while  exhibiting 
the  simpler  treatment  of  the  Paris  one,  and  the  absence  of  the  plastic  sword-belt, 
witness  further  to  the  greater  fidelity  of  this  Dresden  replica. 

Moreover,  it  is  highly  probable  that  on  the  Munich  head  the  furrows  on  brow 
and  cheeks  are  cut  deeper  than  they  were  in  the  original  ; every  feature  seems 
more  strongly  and  sharply  marked,  the  opened  lips  are  more  compact,  and  the 
expression  of  strained  energy  is  thereby  enhanced.  It  is  however  most  improbable 
that  this  expression  should  have  been  entirely  introduced  by  the  copyist,  or  that  it 
could  have  been  so  completely  foreign  to  the  original  as  it  is  to  the  Dresden  head. 
The  latter  seems  rather  to  be  the  work  of  an  inferior  artist,  who,  while  faithfully 
copying  the  forms  of  the  locks  of  hair,  failed — like  the  majority  of  copyists — in  the 
more  delicate  forms  of  the  countenance,  and  contented  himself  with  a general  dull 
rendering  of  the  main  points.  Thus  the  modelling  of  the  forehead  accords  perfectly 
as  to  essentials  in  the  two  heads,  but  in  the  Munich  head  it  is  far  more  delicately 
and  sharply  executed.  The  more  subtle  modulation  at  the  root  of  the  nose1  and  in 
the  cheeks  must  be  regarded,  it  is  true,  as  exaggerated,  but  not  as  foreign  to  the 
original.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Dresden  head  the  eyes,  although  rendered 
superficially,  are  archaic  in  shape,  and  so  doubtless  more  faithful  to  the  original  ; the 
Munich  copyist  had  tried  to  modernize  them  by  rounding  the  eyeballs,  by  curving 
the  upper  eyelid,  and  by  the  general  clear-cut  formation  of  the  lids.  In  the  Dresden 
cast  the  formation  of  the  eye  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Athena  from  Velletri  and 
to  the  Perikles  : on  the  lower  lid  may  be  seen  a fine  incision,  on  the  upper  a more 
strongly  marked  fold.2 

The  chief  result  of  this  critical  examination  of  the  replicas3  is  to  show  that 
Brunn’s  arguments4  against  the  reference  of  the  composition  to  the  fifth  century  are 
unsubstantial  ; for  the  shoulder-belt  and  its  tassels,  the  working  of  the  chlamys  and 
the  hair  in  the  Munich  copy,  on  which  he  bases  his  objections,  have  been  shown  to  be 
later  introductions  of  the  copyist. 

We  now  turn  to  the  examination  and  explanation  of  the  composition. 

Brunn’s  interpretation  of  the  Munich  statue  is,  in  my  opinion,  indisputable  : it 
represents  Diomede  carrying  off  the  Palladium  from  Troy.5  The  left  hand  bore  the 
idol,  which,  hewn  from  the  same  block  of  marble,  was  joined  to  the  body  below  the 

1 On  the  original  of  the  Dresden  cast  the  nose  was  probably  restored. 

2 The  Munich  copy  of  the  Diomede  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Dresden  copy  as  the  Borghese  copy  of  the 
Anakreon  does  to  the  other  copies,  which  are  more  exact  in  details  (cf.  supra,  p.  60). 

3 Besides  the  three  mentioned  I know  of  no  other  full-size  reproduction  of  the  statue.  Two  other  replicas 
in  statuette  size:  (a)  Terme  Museum,  only  a torso;  (b)  Berlin,  Skulpt.  515,  torso  restored.  Of  the  head  there 
is  a possible  replica  in  Madrid  (Hiibner,  No.  189).  [In  the  spring  of  1893  I saw  a full-size  torso  in  the  Terme, 
with  sword-belt  and  sheath  ; phot,  in  German  Inst,  at  Rome. — E.  S.] 

4 Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  p.  656  seq. 

5 -The  objections  adduced  by  Flasch  (/oc.  cit.  p.  9 seq.)  against  Brunn’s  interpretation  carry  little  weight. 
F.  interpreted  the  statue  as  a 1 boxer  ’ on  account  of  the  swollen  ears,  and  almost  in  the  same  breath  as  a warrior, 
because  of  the  sword,  and  on  account  of  the  lance  with  which  he  proposes  to  restore  the  statue  as  a Doryphoros.  ’ 
In  the  end  he  leaves  it  quite  uncertain  which  of  all  these  interpretations  he  himself  adopts,  nor  does  he  give  any 
explanation  of  the  naked  sword. 


Fig.  6i.—  Head  of  the  Munich  Diomede.  (From  the  cast.) 


Fig.  62. — Cast  at  Dresden  of  a replica  of  the  Diomede.  (Original  presumably  in  England.) 


152 


K RE  SI  LAS 


left  shoulder  by  the  great  support  on  the  drapery.1  The  lower  portion  of  the  right 
arm,  which  hangs  down  and  was  presumably  turned  a little  outwards,  was  joined  by 
a support  to  the  thigh,  and  the  hand  grasped  the  naked  sword  ; the  empty  sheath 
hangs  at  the  left  side. 

This  interpretation2  is  decisively  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  motive  of  the 
statue,  as  numerous  monuments  prove,3  became  typical  of  Diomede  the  stealer  of  the 
Palladium,  and  this  not  merely  in  later  times,  for  one  of  the  monuments  dates  back, 
as  will  appear,  to  the  epoch  in  which  the  statue  itself  originated.  The  motive  in  all 
its  details  can  be  fully  and  wholly  explained  by  this  interpretation  alone  ; and  when 
other  figures  are  found  represented  with  the  same  motive,  a transference  from  the 
Diomede  to  them,  and  not  the  reverse,  must  be  supposed. 

The  hero  has  accomplished  the  bold  deed,  has  torn  away  the  miraculous  image 
from  the  sanctuary,  and  is  in  the  act  of  retreating.  It  is  now  a question  of  keeping 
his  booty  and  repelling  assaults  from  others.  To  this  end,  pausing  in  his  stride,  he 
turns  his  head  to  the  side  with  a quick  energetic  movement  ; he  scents  danger,  and 
is  on  the  look  out  with  strained  attention,  ready  with  his  drawn  sword  to  defend 
himself  at  any  moment.  The  entire  motive  of  the  statue — the  stride,  the  head  turned 
to  the  side  away  from  the  supporting  leg,  the  sword  held  lowered  and  ready  in  the 
right  hand,  the  precious  booty  carried  in  the  left  hand — -all  take  their  rise  necessarily 
out  of  the  situation  represented.  The  beauty  of  the  motive,  the  effective  contrast  of 
the  two  sides,  have  not  been  invented  for  their  own  sakes  ; they  are  not  formal  but 
purely  practical  in  nature,  and  have  an  entirely  objective  purpose. 

This  purpose  can  be  yet  more  closely  defined  ; for  the  statue  has  reference 
evidently  to  the  tradition  that  Diomede  was  threatened  as  he  retreated  by  the  envious 
Odysseus,  who  came  upon  him  in  pursuit  from  behind.  Diomede,  with  his  back  still 
to  him,  is  warned  by  the  gleam  or  the  shadow  of  the  sword  in  the  moonlight,  draws 
his  own  sword,  and  Odysseus,  discovered,  relinquishes  his  design.  This  tradition, 
treated  in  the  little  Iliad,  is  of  Argive  origin  ;4  it  celebrates  the  heroic  king  of  Argos, 
who  alone  carried  off  the  true  Palladium  and  conveyed  it  to  his  birthplace,  where  he 
was  afterwards  worshipped  in  a common  cult  with  Athena  ; on  feast  days,  his  cultus- 
symbol,  the  shield,  was  carried  in  procession  together  with  the  Palladium.  From 
this  alone  it  would  be  probable  that  the  original  of  our  statue  stood  at  one  time  in 
Argos  ; the  supposition  is  made  certain  from  the  reproduction  of  this  very  statue  on 
an  Argive  coin  of  the  time  of  the  empire,  when  celebrated  works  of  art  were  so 
readily  copied.5  It  was  therefore  undoubtedly  made  for  Argos,  and  for  the  cult  of 
Diomede  there  established.6 

Another  work  of  art  derived  from  the  statue  is  scarcely  less  interesting  to  us. 
It  is  an  Attic  vase-painting  of  the  last  decade  of  the  fifth  century,7  representing 


1 Brunn’s  idea  of  a small  Palladium  of  bronze  fastened  to  the  marble  support  (Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  653 

seq. ) is,  I think,  untenable,  as  being  contrary  to  all  known  procedure  on  the  part  of  copyists. 

3  Kalkmann  agrees  with  Brunn  ( Gesichtsprop . p.  34).  His  theory,  however,  that  the  Diomede  formed  part 
of  a group  is  quite  untenable  (cf.  my  remarks  in  Berl.  Phil.  Wochenschr.  1894,  p.  1142). 

3 Cf.  Chavannes,  De  Palladii  Raptu,  Berliner  Dissert.  1891,  pp.  4,  6,  15,  23,  24,  25. 

4 For  the  tradition  of  the  legend  and  its  origin  cf.  Chavannes,  loc.  cit.  pp.  42  seq.,  78  seq. 

5 Coin  of  Antoninus  Pius,  Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Numism.  Comm.  PI.  K,  44,  p.  39  > Chavannes, 
loc.  cit.  p.  5.  The  right  forearm  is  a little  more  raised.  [PI.  VI.  32  is  reproduced  from  a still  more  distinct  example 
of  this  coin  ; it  belongs  to  M.  Imhoof-Blumer,  to  whose  courtesy  I am  indebted  for  the  impression. — E.  S.] 

6 This  removes  Flasch’s  objection  that  1 a statuary  representation  of  Diomedes  in  the  period  to  which  the 
original  belongs  is  problematic.’ 

7 Naples,  No.  3235  A.  (Heydemann)  ; Mem.  d.  Inst.  ii.  36;  Overbeck,  Gallerie,  Taf.  24,  19.  Cf. 
Chavannes,  loc.  cit.  p.  6 seq.  The  numerous  restorations  have  never  been  noted  ; these  are — all  of  the  Odysseus 


THE  DIOMEDE 


153 


Diomede  with  the  Palladium  almost  exactly  according  to  the  scheme  of  the  statue  ; 
the  sole  differences  are  immaterial,  and  lie  in  the  arrangement  of  the  chlamys,  in  the 
introduction  of  the  petasos  about  the  neck,  and  the  wreath  on  the  hair.  The  painter 
has  however  utilized  the  motive  in  a form  of  the  tradition  first  introduced  to  the 
Athenian  stage  by  Sophokles,1  according  to  which  Helen  assists  in  the  theft.  The 
picture  represents  the  two  heroes,  Diomede  who  carries  the  Palladium,  and  Odysseus, 
both  with  drawn  swords  and  engaged  in  a dispute,  which  Helen  appears  to  be 
soothing.  This  vase-painting,  which  is  for  the  rest  a fresh  testimony  to  the  direct 
influence  of  the  Attic  stage  on  contemporary  vase-painting,2  must  either  be  derived 
together  with  the  statue  from  a common  source,  such  as  a wall-painting,  or  else  the 
figure  on  the  vase  is  derived  from  the  statue.  The  last  appears  the  more  probable, 
partly  because  the  design  is  so  entirely  statuesque  in  character,  and  partly  because  the 
figure  does  not  fit  in  very  well  with  the  whole  scene,  but  is  conceived  rather  as  a 
single  figure.  This  view  can  only  be  reconciled  with  our  previous  conclusion  that  the 
statue  was  destined  for  Argos,  on  the  supposition  that  the  artist  worked  in  Athens, 
where  the  design  could  easily  have  passed  into  the  workshops  of  the  vase-painters. 

In  later  antiquity  again  this  statue  was  utilized  in  representations  of  the  theft  of 
the  Palladium — as  on  the  beautiful  Spada  relief3 — precisely  because  in  it  had  been 
found  the  most  pregnant  expression  for  the  deed  and  character  4 of  the  hero. 

Now,  though  the  original  must  have  belonged  to  the  free  style  of  the  fifth 
century,  it  is  equally  clear  that  it  comes  under  none  of  the  chief  tendencies  familiar 
in  this  epoch.  It  does  not  belong  to  the  narrow  Polykleitan  circle  ; for  the  contour 
of  the  face  and  the  hair,  as  also  the  general  bearing  and  conception,  are  quite 
different.  As  little  does  it  conform  either  in  head  or  body  to  the  Attic  style  of  the 
Parthenon  frieze  and  pediments  and  similar  works — except  in  so  far  as  the  energetic 
turn  of  the  head  recalls  the  Promachos  and  the  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo — or  to 
that  Attic  manner  chiefly  known  from  the  Munich  and  Florence  athletes.5 

On  the  contrary,  it  brings  us  again  to  Kresilas.  The  similarity  of  the  beard  to 
that  of  the  Perikles  (especially  in  the  Vatican  replica)  is  startling.  We  recognize  (in 
the  Dresden  cast)  those  long-slit,  heavy-lidded  eyes,  familiar  from  the  Perikles  and 
the  Amazon  ; and  again  (Munich  replica)  the  marking  off  of  the  brow  from  the  nose 
by  two  vertical  depressions  as  in  the  Perikles.  And  the  likeness  of  the  mouth  to  that 
of  the  Amazon  at  once  catches  the  eye,  in  spite  of  the  difference  in  the  expression. 
The  hair  also — in  this  respect  only  the  Dresden  cast  can  come  into  question — is 
similar  to  that  of  the  Amazon  and  the  Perikles  ; it  consists  of  heavy,  plastically  full 

(except  the  upper  half  of  the  body  and  the  hands),  the  shaft  of  the  lance  and  the  handle  of  the  sword 
painted  above  the  sheath.  Originally  the  sheath  was  empty,  and  Odysseus  held  the  drawn  sword  in  his 
right  hand.  He  was  of  course  bearded.  In  the  Helen  a piece  of  the  middle  of  the  body,  the  left  arm,  the 
back  of  the  head,  the  nose,  and  the  forehead  are  new.  The  cloth  hung  up  is  quite  out  of  harmony  with  the 
style  of  the  vase,  and  is  also  modern.  The  Diomede  is  all  antique.  The  inscriptions  are  given  correctly  in 
Ileydemann’s  facsimile,  wrongly  in  the  text  and  illustrations.  The  style  of  the  vase  is  that  of  Aristophanes  and 
Erginos,  which  begins  about  430  B.  c. 

1 In  the  AaKaivcu  ; cf.  Chavannes,  loc.  cit.  p.  51  seq.  2 Cf.  supra , p.  no,  and  Arch.  Anz.  1S90,  p.  89. 

3 Schreiber,  Hellenist.  Reliefbilder,  Taf.  7 ; cf.  gems  (Chavannes,  loc.  cit.  p.  15),  Mon.  d.  Inst.  vi.  51  D ; 
Arch.  Epigr.  Mitth.  aus  Oester.  iii.  p.  40. 

4 The  characterization  is  carried  to  the  verge  of  portraiture  ; hence  Frohner,  Not.  128,  explained  the  Louvre 
replica  as  a Roman  portrait ; cf.  Brunn,  Glypt.  5th  ed.  p.  217.  Lately  Winter , Jahrb.  v.  1890,  p.  167,  went  so  far  as 
to  try  to  trace  the  original  back  to  Seilanion,  on  the  ground  that  the  Munich  Diomede  offered  points  of  resemblance 
to  portraits  [e.g.  the  Plato)  by  that  artist.  Brunn  in  his  latest  essay  on  the  statue,  Bay?-.  Sitz.  Ber.  1892,  p.  663  sqq. , 
merely  tries  to  show  that  the  art  of  Seilanion,  like  the  Diomede,  marks  a transition  from  the  style  of  the  fifth 
century  to  that  of  Praxiteles  and  Lysippos.  Previously  however  (1891)  Flasch  had  thoroughly  vindicated  the 
fifth-century  character  of  the  body,  and  his  results  are  confirmed  by  the  analysis  given  above. 

5 Cf.  Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  7 ; Rom.  Mitth.  1892,  p.  81,  Taf.  3.  Cf.  infra , pp  259-  262. 


X 


154 


KRESILAS 


masses,  with  shallow  inner  lines  carved  upon  them  ; the  crown  is  deeply  embedded. 
The  hair  of  the  so-called  Alkibiades  (Fig.  51)  is  very  similar  ; but  there  it  is  evidently 
copied  from  the  person  pourtrayed,  while  in  the  present  instance  the  artist  (as  will 
presently  appear)  submitted,  in  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  close-cropped  hair,  to 
the  influence  of  an  older  heroic  type 

On  the  ground  of  the  treatment  of  the  hair,  the  Diomede  should  be  placed  in 
the  same  period  as  the  Perikles,  the  ‘ Alkibiades,’  and  the  Amazon,  i.e.  circa  440. 
Yet  other  considerations —the  dress,  the  structure,  and  the  modelling  of  the  various 
facial  forms — would  suggest  it  to  be  perhaps  somewhat  earlier.  The  dress — abstrac- 
tion always  made  of  the  modernized  details  in  the  Munich  replica — is  closely  related, 
in  its  simple  true  defining  of  the  thick  woollen  material  and  in  the  singular  force 
with  which  the  folds  are  rendered,  to  the  Velletri  Athena. 

The  body  seems  at  first  sight  to  resemble  the  Polykleitan  canon  ; and  it  does  so, 
both  in  the  broad  outline  and  in  the  details;1  yet  a close  inspection  brings  marked 
differences  to  light.  The  whole  body  is  more  compact  and  more  strained  ; all  the 
forms  display  more  tension,  more  readiness  for  the  energetic  manifestation  of  force. 
In  Polykleitos,  for  instance,  the  lower  line  of  the  chest  is  graduated  more  gently  and 
harmoniously — one  might  say,  more  schematically — than  is  the  case  in  the  Diomede, 
where  its  projections  and  depressions  produce  far  richer  modulations.  In  the  Diomede 
also,  as  in  the  other  works  attributed  to  Kresilas,  is  to  be  found  the  harsh  passage  of 
the  deltoid  into  the  shoulder.  The  straight  and  oblique  abdominal  muscles,  too,  are 
rather  more  hardly  marked  off  than  with  Polykleitos,  and  even  the  navel,  notwith- 
standing its  general  similarity,  is  less  flat  and  more  substantial.  All  these  differences 
bear  witness,  however,  to  the  indisputable  connexion  with  the  characteristics  observed 
in  the  earlier  of  the  works  attributed  to  Kresilas.  The  Diomede  continues  their 
tradition,  tending  in  the  direction  towards  Polykleitan  forms. 

The  modelling  in  the  face  of  the  Diomede  is  singularly  rich,  even  allowing  for 
the  fact  that  in  the  Munich  copy  it  is  probably  exaggerated.  The  bony  eminences 
of  the  brow  are  strongly  emphasized.  Their  junction  with  the  nose  has  already  been 
cited  as  especially  Ivresilaian.  The  interciliary  region  also  is  perceptible  though  faint, 
since  the  whole  lower  half  of  the  forehead  projects  strongly.  The  root  of  the  nose, 
i.e.  the  point  where  the  frontal  bone  and  the  nasal  bone  meet,  is  treated  with  especial 
delicacy  and  richness,  and  is  carefully  marked  off  from  the  adjoining  parts.  The 
treatment  is  similar  in  the  Perikles,  though  not  so  advanced.  The  bridge  of  the 
nose  is  narrow.2  The  delicate,  natural  shape  of  the  nose  affords  a good  contrast  to 
the  schematic  shape  affected  by  Polykleitos.  The  nostrils  are  of  singular  energy 
in  their  swollen  cartilaginous  formation.  Finally,  the  spare  cheeks  and  the  parts 
about  the  mouth  are  richly  modelled.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  strong  emphasizing 
of  the  oblong,  angular  shape  of  skull  may  be  recognized  a tendency  towards  the 
Polykleitan  canon. 

All  these  observations  tend  to  prove  that  the  Diomede  most  probably  originated 
in  the  period  circa  440 — 430.  This  is  the  epoch  to  which  we  referred  the  Velletri 
Athena,  a work  with  which  the  Diomede  corresponds  in  every  respect.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  in  the  Athena  the  Polykleitan  influence  was  apparent  in  the 
walking  attitude. 

This  result  admirably  fits  in  with  the  required  condition,  that  the  artist  of  the 

1 E.g.  the  formation  of  navel,  abdomen,  and  pubes. 

In  the  Munich  copy  the  nose  is  antique.  A characteristic  point  is  that  the  distance  between  the  inner 
corners  of  the  eyes  corresponds  not  to  the  full  eye-slit  length,  but  only  to  the  length  without  the  tear-gland, 


THE  DIOMEDE 


155 


Diomede  made  in  Athens  a statue  destined  for  Argos.  The  later  removal  of 
Kresilas  to  Argos,  which  we  dated  after  430,  would  thus  be  prepared  for  by  earlier 
relations  with  that  town,  attested  both  by  the  fact  of  the  commission  and  by  the 
influence  of  the  Argive  school. 

Finally,  it  is  sufficient  to  indicate  in  what  a pre-eminent  degree  the  Diomede 
exhibits  that  Kresilaian  power  of  individualization  which  characterized  the  Amazon. 
Of  the  facial  forms,  the  thinness  of  the  cheeks  is  especially  to  be  noted,  as  well  as  the 
unusually  broad  and  powerful  chin,  the  strong  structure  of  the  lower  jaw,  and  the  hard 
prominence  of  its  corners,  which  it  had  been  customary  to  conceal  under  a fatty 
stratum  of  skin.  All  these  details  express  the  rough  obstinate  force  of  the  son  of 
Tydeus.  The  cropped  hair  and  the  sprouting  whiskers  1 serve  to  define  the  powerful 
youth,  so  do  the  ears  swollen  from  the  boxing-match  (this  detail  undoubtedly 
belonged  to  the  original  : the  Munich  and  Dresden  replicas  exhibit  it,  and  only  the 
indifferent  Paris  copy  omits  it.  This  allusion  to  skill  in  the  roughest  and  most 
dangerous  of  sports  is  as  appropriate  to  our  hero  as  it  is  to  Herakles).2  The  ear  is 
for  the  rest  very  carefully  modelled  : it  has  a long  thin  lobe,  clearly  separated 
from  the  rest  of  the  ear. 

It  was  natural  that  so  forcible  a creation  as  the  Diomede  should  make  a strong 
impression  on  its  own  and  on  later  times.  The  earliest  monument  derived  from  it,  the 
Attic  vase,  has  already  come  under  our  notice.  A statue  of  Ares,  referred  to  in 
an  earlier  connexion  (p.  94,  Fig.  41),  would  appear,  from  the  whole  attitude  and 
bearing,  the  arrangement  of  the  garment  and  the  sword,  to  be  also  derived  from  the 
Diomede.  The  reverse  is  certainly  not  the  case  ; for  in  the  Diomede  every  detail  has 
its  reason  in  the  situation  represented,  while  in  the  Ares  we  only  get  a beautiful 
motive  used  without  special  significance — whence  also  the  less  emphatic  turn  of  the 
head.  The  dull  and  meaningless  drapery  of  the  Ares  likewise  denotes  an  artist 
of  the  second  order. 

It  will  be  seen  presently  that  the  Diomede  seems  to  have  stirred  up  emulation 
even  in  the  circle  of  Polyldeitos. 

To  later,  perhaps  only  to  Roman,  times  pertains  the  transformation  (preserved 
in  a charming  bronze  statuette  found  at  Zurich)  of  the  Diomede  into  a Hermes.3 
The  winged  cap  and  shoes  denote  Hermes  ; but  the  entire  motive,  down  to  the 
garment  on  the  left  shoulder,  is  borrowed  from  the  Diomede ; even  the  close- 
cropped  hair,  the  shape  of  skull,  and  the  expression  retain  something  of  the 
prototype. 

On  the  other  hand,  a larger,  much  mutilated  bronze  statuette  in  Berlin  appears 
to  be  an  original  of  the  good  Hellenistic  period.4  The  Diomede  forms  the  basis  for  a 
portrait  conceived  heroically.  The  garment  is  omitted  ; but  the  prototype  can  be 
traced  not  only  in  the  motive  but  also  in  the  forms  of  the  body,  and — notwithstanding 
the  portrait-character  and  the  different  hair — even  in  the  countenance,  which  has 
the  same  angular  jaw  and  slight  whiskers. 

finally,  the  Diomede,  like  so  many  celebrated  Greek  statues,  had  to  serve  as 
model  for  portraits  of  the  Roman  emperors.  A good  instance  is  a statue  of  Augustus 

1 Cf.  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  654  jvy. 

As  far  as  I know,  the  first  dated  representation  of  Herakles  with  swollen  ears  appears  on  the  coins  of 
Euagoras  I.  (410 — 374) — cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  2163,  5 ! yet  there  are  many  instances  which  may  be  earlier. 

3 Mitth.  d.  Antiqu.  Gesellsch.  in  Zurich , Bd.  xv.  Taf.  5,  23,  and  xvii.  7,  p.  133,  No.  57  (Benndorf). 

4 Antiquarium,  Inv.  741 9,  height  0'20,  from  Asia  Minor.  The  figure  is  cast  hollow  with  thin  walls  ; square 
patches  are  let  in,  as  often  occurs  on  larger  Greek  bronzes.  Arms  and  legs  were  cast  separately,  and  are  now 
missing.  The  surface  is  much  rubbed. 


156 


KRESILAS 


in  the  Vatican  ;x  the  garment  is  there  altered  to  suit  the  Roman  fashion.  Lastly,  it 
seems  to  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the  artist  of  the  superb  bust  of  Caracalla 
in  Berlin,1 2  which  recalls  it  in  bearing  and  expression,  in  chlamys  and  sword-belt, 
and  even  wears  the  same  whiskers. 


VII.  The  Medusa  Rondanini. 

To  the  surprise  doubtless  of  many,  the  Medusa  Rondanini — that  noble  and 
unique  creation  which  once  so  inspired  Goethe  in  Rome — does  not  belong,  as  has  been 
supposed,  to  later  Greek  art,  but  is  inseparably  linked  to  the  series  of  works  now  under 
discussion  and  associated  with  the  name  of  Kresilas. 

The  Rondanini  mask,  now  in  Munich 3 (reproduced  from  the  cast  in  Fig.  63), 
is  admirably  preserved  ; save  for  some  insignificant  bits  of  the  snakes  and  of  the 
hair,  only  the  extreme  point  of  the  nose  and  the  edge  of  the  left  nostril  are  modern. 
The  mask  is  cut  straight  off  at  the  back,  and  has  been  fastened  in  modern  times 
upon  a square  plaque.  The  existence  of  two  replicas  preserved  in  Rome,  now  in 
the  Museo  Torlonia,4  witnesses  to  the  celebrity  of  the  work  in  antiquity.  They  have 
no  background  ; in  modern  times  they  have  merely  been  placed  upon  busts.  Two 
Medusa  masks  in  the  Vatican  5 and  a colossal  one  in  Cologne6  are  similarly  cut  off  at 
the  back  and  unprovided  with  a background  : they  have  however  at  the  most  only  a 
very  distant  dependence  on  the  Rondanini  mask,  imitating  it  in  externals  but  trans- 
lating it  into  the  late  half-effeminate  and  half-pathetic  manner. 

The  circumstance  that  these  masks  were  worked  without  a background  suggests 
that  they  were  intended  to  be  fastened  by  the  purchaser  against  a wall — -that  is  to 
say,  to  hang  simply  against  the  wall  of  a house.  They  certainly  could  not,  as  has 
been  suggested,7  have  stood  in  any  definite  relation  to  the  architecture,  for  in  that 
case  they  would  have  been  worked  into  the  architectural  member  they  were  intended 
to  adorn,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  the  existence  of  exact  replicas. 
The  latter  suggest  rather  a famous  Greek  original,  copied  for  its  own  sake  and 
absolutely  independent  of  varying  architectural  surroundings.  This  original  must 
have  been  cast  in  bronze,  to  judge  from  the  network  of  snakes,  so  little  suitable 
to  marble,  and  from  the  smoothness  of  the  surface  of  the  face.  It  will  be  felt, 
too,  how  much  more  effective  the  work  would  be  in  bronze  than  in  marble.  The 
best  (No.  294)  of  the  two  Torlonia  replicas  is  significant,  because  it  renders  the  hair 
generally  without  the  deep  undercutting  of  the  Rondanini  replica,  and  is  rather  more 
severe  and  evidently  more  faithful  in  the  details.  Thus  the  little  curling  lock  at  the 
side  near  the  left  eye  is  formed  quite  in  the  archaic  manner  with  a tightly  rolled  end. 
In  other  respects  the  faces  show  that  the  Torlonia  replicas  are  both  inferior  works. 

The  general  place  of  the  Medusa  in  the  history  of  art,  notwithstanding  the  gross 
error  of  judgment  in  which  I had  myself  concurred,8  is  unmistakable  on  a close 

1 Gall,  delle  Statue,  No.  262  ; Bernouilli,  Rom.  Ikonographie , ii.  1,  Taf.  3,  p.  58.  The  head  unbroken. 

2 Skulpt.  384  ; Mitchell,  Select,  from  Anc.  Sculpt.  PI.  20. 

3 Glypt.  No.  128  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  239  ; Brunn,  Gotterideale , p.  60. 

4 Museo  Torlonia , Taf.  74,  Nos.  294,  296. 

5 Pistolesi,  Vatic.  Descr.  iv.  13  ; Helbig,  Museums,  10.  6 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1598. 

7 Brunn,  loc.  cit. , and  Verhandl.  d.  Philologenversammlung  in  Dessau,  p.  76  ; Gotterideale,  p.  60 ; Dilthey, 

Annali d.  Inst.  1871,  p.  228;  K.  Botticher,  Erkl.  Verz.  d.  Abgiisse,  No.  793- 

8 In  Roscher’s  Lexikon  d.  Myth.  i.  1724.  The  coin  of  Seleukos  (Gardner,  Types,  PI.  14,  6)  compared 
by  T-  Six,  De  Gorgone , p.  73,  is  quite  different,  and  is  probably  at  the  most  a distant  Hellenistic  derivative  of  the 
Rondanini  type.  The  hair  is  Lysippian. 


K RES I LAS 


158 

inspection  of  the  replicas.  The  stylistic  treatment  of  the  eyes  and  their  adjoining 
parts  (such  as  the  sharp  edges  of  the  eyebrows),  of  the  hair,  and  of  the  mouth  is 
never  met  with  at  all  so  late  as  the  fourth  century.  The  work  is  of  the  free  style  of 
the  fifth  century — a result  to  which  the  development  of  the  art  type  of  Medusa  does 
not  in  the  least  run  counter. 

The  Medusa  head  with  beautiful,  undistorted  features  appears  on  an  Attic  vase 
as  early  as  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,1  not  it  is  true  in  the  form  of  a 
mask  or  of  a gorgoncion,  but  as  a severed  head  with  the  neck,  in  the  hand  of  Perseus. 
A great  artist  must  be  at  the  back  of  this  conception  (cf.  infra , p.  200).  Following 
on  this  come  several  gorgoneia  with  the  severed  neck  ; they  exhibit  the  same  type  of 
pure  beauty,  and  from  their  style  they  must  be  dated  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth 
century.2  The  endeavour  was  to  dispense  with  all  external  tokens  and  to  define  the 
Medusa  by  the  expression  alone,  mostly  by  wide-opened  eyes  and  bristling  hair. 

But  now  our  artist  invested  the  old  traditional  gorgoneion  with  beauty  of 
feature.  In  doing  so  he  did  not  entirely  give  up  the  severe  character  of  the  mask: 
he  also  retained  the  two  snakes  which  encircle  the  head  and  twine  into  a knot 
under  the  chin,  and  which  had  been  a familiar  feature  in  the  distorted  gorgoneia 
of  the  type  immediately  preceding  ;3  and  he  adds  to  the  head  the  further  attribute  of 
two  wings,  similarly  borrowed  from  more  archaic  art,  though  it  was  not  common 
there,4  and  had  still  a certain  air  of  innovation.  For  the  rest  he  is  in  substantial 
agreement  with  the  other  works  of  the  epoch  that  represent  the  new  £ beautiful  ’ type 
of  Medusa.5  He  too  gives  her  big  wide-opened  eyes  and  short  bristling  hair.  Only, 
to  give  full  effect  to  the  wings  and  snakes,  he  had  to  let  the  motive  of  the  hair  fall 
more  into  the  background,  whereas  other  artists  of  the  time  lay  chief  stress  upon  it. 
He  too,  like  most  of  the  others,  lets  the  hair  lie  smooth  and  well  arranged  in  the 
centre  over  the  forehead  ; but  he  makes  it  stand  out  at  the  sides  and  frame  the 
countenance  as  far  as  the  region  of  the  ears  ; the  ears  themselves  he  omits,  as  is  usual 
in  the  ‘beautiful’  type.  On  the  other  hand,  the  character  he  strives  to  give  to  the 
mouth  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  himself.  He  throws  into  it  the  chief  expression. 
While  the  others  either  make  the  mouth  beautiful  though  quite  ordinary,6  or  else 
recall  the  older  type  in  a mechanical  and  discordant  way  by  introducing  into  the 
face  the  projecting  tip  of  the  tongue,7  our  artist  has  contrived,  without  impairing  the 
beauty,  to  retain  something  of  the  older  conception,  by  making  the  mouth  unwontedly 
broad  and  with  parted  lips,  showing  the  upper  teeth.  The  discovery  of  the  place 
occupied  by  our  Medusa  in  the  development  of  the  type  affords  a key  to  the  right 
understanding  of  the  intention  of  the  artist. 

Above  all,  it  exposes  as  false  the  ordinary  notion  that  the  Medusa  is  conceived 
as  dying.  Goethe  it  was  who  first  discovered  in  the  mask  ‘ the  agonized  stare  of 

1 Annali  d.  Inst.  1 88 r , Tav.  F.  Style  of  the  Orpheus  vase  (50th  Berliner  Winckelmannsprogr.  1890,  Taf.  ii.) 
For  the  date  see  ibid.  p.  162. 

2 Thus  the  terra-cotta  relief,  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  122,  Fig.  17  a ; the  Panofka  tile,  Terrak.  v.  Berlin,  Taf.  62, 

1 ; bronze  masks  in  Berlin  Antiquarium,  No.  7484. 

3 Frequent  on  the  gorgoneia  of  the  ‘middle’  type;  so  on  the  shield  of  the  Parthenos  (British  Museum 
copy)  and  on  the  shield  of  the  Athena  of  the  Nike  balustrade  ; on  the  aegis  of  the  Albani  Athena  (Fig.  29,  p. 
79)  and  of  the  Munich  Athena  (Brunn,  Glypt.  No.  86). 

4 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex  ikon,  i.  1722  se/. , where  several  certain  examples  of  the  older  fifth-century  type  are 
given. 

6 See  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1721  seq.  For  the  gem  with  Solon’s  name  cf.  Arch.  Jahrb.  1888,  p.  310  ; 
the  monuments  which  in  Roscher  I placed  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  should  probably  be  dated  in 
the  fifth.  For  important  new  evidence  cf.  the  terra-cotta  in  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  122,  Fig.  17  a. 

6 E.g.  the  bronze  attachments  for  the  handles  of  pails,  Berlin  Antiquarium,  Aw.  74§4>  and  Roscher,  1722. 

7 Cf.  the  terra-cotta  mask,  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  122,  Fig.  17  a. 


MEDUSA  RON DAN IN  I 


159 


death.’1  He  was  followed  by  many  others — eg.  Friederichs,2  O.  Jahn,3  Dilthey,4  and 
Kekule,5  who  expanded  on  this  theme.  The  representation  of  a dying,  defeated 
woman  stiffening  in  death  is,  however,  far  removed  from  the  intention  of  the  whole  series 
of  works  with  which  the  Rondanini  mask  must  historically  be  ranked.  What  these 
works  really  do  is  to  substitute  for  the  wild  brutality  of  the  older  type6  a tranquil 
human  conception  ; for  the  grim  look  of  fury,  a fixed  wide-opened  eye  that 
fascinates  the  beholder  by  its  daemoniac  power — and  this  effect  is  heightened  by  the 
bristling  hair.  By  the  powerful  chin  and  the  broad  open  mouth  our  artist  has 
depicted  yet  more  intimately  the  wild  force  and  constraining  strength  of  the  daemon,7 
and  at  the  same  time  has  suggested  the  powerful  voice  which  tradition  attributes  to  the 
gorgons.  Above  all,  he  alone  has  known  how  to  invest  the  whole  expression  with  a 
freezing  horror. 

It  was  not  till  a much  later  date— till  the  epoch  after  Alexander — that  the  type 
was  created  of  the  agonizing  gorgon,  looking  out  with  blank  despairing  gaze.8  Yet 
not  even  at  this  time  is  she  ever  represented  as  exhausted  or  dying,  and  those 
gorgoneia  still  preponderate  which  depict  the  force,  the  wrath,  and  the  wild  anger  of 
the  grim  daemon,  though  in  the  pathetic  and  realistic  fashion  of  the  time. 

This  historical  survey  exposes  what  was  incorrect  in  Brunn’s  9 interpretation  of 
the  Rondanini  mask.  Brunn  did  not,  certainly,  fall  into  the  error  of  seeing  in  it  a 
dying  creature  : he  describes  the  general  expression  admirably  as  a ‘ cold  stare,’  but  he 
attributes  this  fixity  to  an  ‘ architectonic  petrcfaction  of  the  form,’  the  mask  having, 
according  to  him,  served  an  architectonic  purpose.  The  objections  to  this  view  have 
already  been  raised.  But  the  so-called  tectonic  character  of  the  mask,  its  severely 
symmetrical  composition  within  an  outline  of  almost  geometrical  simplicity — an 
inverted  triangle — is  nothing  more  than  one  of  the  proofs  for  the  relatively  early 
date  of  the  work.  For  this  character  is  common  to  all  earlier  gorgoneia  without 
exception.  It  is  most  strongly  marked  in  the  earliest  period,  and  is  afterwards 
gradually  modified,10  till  it  completely  disappears  in  the  Hellenistic  epoch,  when  the 
severe  full  view  is  also  commonly  given  up. 

It  is  true  that  our  mask  is  distinguished  from  among  works  of  the  same  time  and 
epoch  by  its  severe  lineal  structure  : this  structure  is  however  not  selected  for  any 
external  purpose,  but  only  as  lending  itself  to  the  mental  expression.  The  mask 
has  only  to  be  compared  with  others  to  appreciate  how  considerably  the  severe 
structure  contributes  to  the  daemoniacal  expression  : even  as  the  serried  ranks 
of  an  army  produce  more  effect  than  the  same  troops  in  loose  array — so  it  is 
with  art-forms. 

1 Schriften  der  Gothegesellsch.  Bd.  ii.  Tageb.  iiber  Briefe  Giithe’s  ans  Italien,  p.  240  = Lai.  Reise,  Rome, 
25  Dec.  1786.  Cf.  April  1788,  where  he  notes  ‘the  discord  between  death  and  life,  pain  and  delight 
(‘  Zwiespalt  zwischen  Tod  und  Leben,  zwischen  Schmerz  und  Wollust’). 

2 Bausteine,  No.  672  ( = Fried. -Wolters,  Gipsahg.  1597).  ‘At  the  moment  of  turning  to  stone'  (‘ini 
Moment  des  Erstarrens  ’). 

3 Aus  der  Alterthumswissenschaft.  p.  278  (‘im  Tode  erstarrend  ’ ; ‘eine  liihmende  Kalte  . . . losch 

den  letzten  Lebensfunken  aus’)-  4 Annaii  d.  Inst.  1871,  p.  220  seq. 

5 Entstehung der  Gbtterideaie,  p.  25  seq. : ‘unterliegt  in  Trotz  und  Schmerz.’ 

0 Dilthey,  Annaii , 1871,  220,  takes  for  granted  that  the  archaic  gorgon  was  represented  as  dying.  It  is 
however  easy  to  prove  that  the  old  type  came  into  existence  without  any  thought  of  death.  On  the  contrary,  the 
type  was,  although  inappropriate,  adopted  for  the  scene  in  which  Perseus  kills  the  gorgon.  Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i. 
1701  seq. 

1 Meyer  noticed  (on  Winckelman’s  Geschichte  d.  Kunst,  v.  2,  § 20)  that  the  forms  incline  to  the  wild  and 

terrible  (‘zum  Wilden  und  Schreckenden ’).  8 Cf.  Ro  cher,  loc.  cit.  1724. 

9 Glypt.  5th  ed.  p.  164  seq.  ; Verhandlungen  d.  Philologenvers.  in  Dessau,  p.  76  ; Gbtterideaie,  p.  59  seJ- 

111  Cf.  Roicher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1719,  15  seq.  In  the  older  period  the  circle  is  the  fundamental  form. 


i6o 


KRESILAS 


The  mask  terminates  above  in  a broad  horizontal,  which  exerts  a gloomy 
massive  effect  upon  the  whole.  Thence  the  lines  converge  downwards  in  the 
manner  of  an  equilateral  triangle  ; at  their  point  of  intersection  the  terrible  ex- 
pression of  the  whole  culminates  in  the  half-opened  mouth  with  the  snake-knot 
beneath.  But  above  the  wings  broaden  levelly  out — surely  and  inevitably,  as 
when  a bird  takes  its  quiet  flight  through  the  air,1  does  the  spectator  feel 
the  ghostly  head  approach,  while  beneath  the  shadow  of  the  wings  hiss  the 
snakes.2 

We  have  endeavoured  to  explain  the  Rondanini  mask  by  the  period  and  the 
subject  ; but  complete  comprehension  is  only  possible  with  the  recognition  of  the 
personal  note,  of  that  quality  in  the  work  which  belongs,  not  to  the  nature  of  Medusa, 
but  to  the  personality  of  the  artist  who  created  her. 

After  all  that  has  been  said,  no  detailed  proof  is  needed  to  show  that  this 
personality  is  the  one  with  which  we  have  been  occupied.  The  broad  likeness — 
the  likeness  of  a child  to  its  parents — strikes  the  eye  at  once.  Among  the  single 
features,  the  eyes  again  first  claim  attention.  Although  the  Medusa  type  required  the 
eyes  to  be  wide  open,  the  artist  has  given  them  the  heavy  thick  lids  noted  in  all  his 
heads,  nor  is  the  little  fold  on  the  lower  lid  omitted,  while  the  strongly  marked  lachrymal 
gland  also  belongs  to  his  system  of  forms.  In  the  centre  of  the  forehead  the  smooth 
interciliary  region  is  again  indicated  ; to  the  sides  the  lower  part  of  the  forehead 
is  markedly  prominent,  but  without  being  separated  off  by  depressions,  as  in  the 
Diomede,  from  the  sharp  edge  of  brow — a difference  based  on  the  character  of  the 
heads : in  the  one  everything  is  concentrated  towards  the  centre,  and  in  the  other  a 
massive  breadth  dominates  the  whole  design.  A further  point  of  agreement  is  the  way 
in  which  the  nose  is  formed,  with  a narrow  rounded  bridge  rising  gently  in  the 
middle  and  very  lifelike  nostrils,  although  its  lower  part  is  essentially  different,  being 
made  broader  to  lead  on  to  the  unusually  broad  mouth,  while  the  nostrils  of  the 
gruesome  creature  are  strongly  inflated.  And  again  it  is  indisputable  that  the 
drawing  of  the  mouth  accords  with  the  works  already  examined,  and  in  particular 
with  the  Diomede.  Finally,  the  hair  about  the  forehead  closely  resembles  that  of 
the  Athena  in  arrangement  and  treatment. 

We  find,  then,  in  the  Medusa  all  the  characteristic  details  of  the  work  of  Kresilas, 
and,  more  than  this,  we  find  that  general  type  so  difficult  to  define  in  words.  It  is, 
finally,  a fresh  witness  of  the  artist’s  power  of  entering  into  the  heart  of  his  subject, 
and  of  making  the  outer  form  expressive  of  the  inner  qualities.  It  must,  of  course, 
be  reckoned  among  his  later  works. 

Being  a work  of  the  fifth  century,  the  mask  could  not  have  served  a mere 
decorative  purpose  ; it  must  have  been  set  up  in  some  public  building  and  have 
had  a religious  significance  ; something  like  the  ‘ golden  ’ (probably  brazen) 
gorgoneion  on  the  outer  side  of  the  south  wall  of  the  Akropolis  (Paus.  i.  21,  3); 
or  like  that  older  stone  one  at  Argos,  ascribed  to  the  Kyklopes  (Paus.  ii.  20,  7). 
Precisely  Argos,  the  home  of  the  legend  of  Perseus  and  Medusa,  might  well  have 
given  this  commission,  and  our  Medusa  may  be  thought  of  as  a possible  offering 
in  the  sanctuary  of  Demeter  Chthonia  at  Hermione,  for  which  an  inscription 

1 The  wings  are  not  sunk  as  Brunn  ( Glypt. ) and  Kekule  ( Entst, . d.  G'otterideale , p.  26)  assert.  In  the  I erk.  d. 
Philologenvers.  zu  Dessau,  p.  76  ( Gotterideale , p.  59)>  Brunn  himself  says  that  the  wings  aie  raised  in  a 
threatening  manner.  I only  know  one  instance  of  a wearily  sunk  pair  of  wings,  i.e.  a Medusa  head  on  a gem  of 
doubtful  authenticity  (from  Coll.  Blacas,  now  in  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  1253  ; King,  Anc.  Gems,  ii.  PI.  20,  6 , 
cast  in  Cades,  Cl.  ii.  F,  56). 

2 The  snake-heads  are  restored,  but  evidently  right  on  the  whole. 


THE  PETWORTH  ATHLETE. 


161 


shows  Kresilas  to  have  worked.  Since  the  Topyenj  /cecpaXy,  according  to  ancient 
conception,1  had  a ghostly  existence  in  the  underworld  and  was  subject  to  Per- 
sephone, the  Medusa  mask  might  well  be  set  up  in  a sanctuary  of  the  goddess 
of  the  lower  world.  It  has  been  seen  that  the  mask  was  intended  to  be  fastened 
to  any  wall.  Pausanias  (i.  2,  5),  in  the  description  of  a Temenos  of  Dionysos  at 
Athens,  reports  that  the  mask  of  the  Dionysiac  daemon  Akratos  was  attached  to 
the  wall  of  the  sanctuary;  and,  according  to  Pliny  (xxxvi.  § 13),  there  was  a mask 
of  Artemis,  an  archaic  work  of  Boupalos  and  Athcnis,  on  the  wall  of  her  temple 
in  Chios. 

The  creation  of  Medusa  also  influenced  succeeding  art,  were  it  only  by  its 
external  scheme,  which  was  repeated  with  more  or  less  similarity  in  so  many  later 
gorgoneia ; as  to  its  spiritual  character,  that  could  only  be  copied,  never  imitated. 


VI 1 1.  Statue  of  an  Athlete  at  Petworth. 

As  last  and  latest  link  in  the  personal  growth  we  have  been  studying,  there 
remains  to  be  added  the  head  of  a youth  adorned  with  the  victor’s  chaplet,  which 
is  preserved  in  four  copies.  The  finest  is  at  Petworth,  in  the  collection  of  Lord 
Leconfield;2  it  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  65  from  a photograph  taken  from  the 
original  by  permission  of  the  owner  ; Fig.  64,  from  an  old  cast  in  Dresden  be- 
longing to  the  Mengs  collection,  shows  the  profile.  Nothing  is  restored  in  the  head 
except  the  tip  of  the  nose.  The  neck  is  almost  entirely  preserved,  but  it  is  cut  sharply 
off  and  set  on  to  a coarse  modern  nude  bust.  The  head  is  probably  identical  with  one 
published  by  Count  Caylus  in  1736.3  This  youth  with  the  curling  hair  has  wound 
about  his  head  the  victor’s  chaplet,  taenia  or  mitra.4  The  ears,  which  are  not  swollen, 
and  a certain  refinement  and  gentleness  in  the  whole  form,  would  indicate  that  he  is 
no  hero  of  the  glove  and  the  pankration,  but  has  conquered  in  a different  way — 
either  in  a running  match  or  in  the  combats  of  the  Pentathlon,  where  skill  rather  than 
brute  force  was  required.  The  chaplet  is  not  twisted  in  a knot  at  the  back,  but  wound 
round  the  head,  with  the  ends  tucked  in  and  pushed  through  the  fillet  on  either  side 
above  the  temples.  This  method  of  fastening,  though  very  practical  and  doubtless 
often  employed  in  real  life,  is  yet  nowhere  else  represented  in  plastic  art.  The  artist 

1 Nekyia  of  the  Odyssey , xi.  634  ; Aristoph.  Frogs,  475.  Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1703  ; Max.  Mayer  in 
Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  p.  201. 

2 No.  24,  Michaelis,  Anc.  Marb.  in  Gr.  Brit.  p.  609  ; Special,  of  Anc.  Sculpt,  i.  30.  The  marble  is  fine 
in  grain,  the  nude  parts  polished. 

3 Caylus,  Rec.  d’ Ant.  ii.  PI.  48,  2 ; p.  142.  The  engraving  (reversed)  certainly  gives  a head  of  this  type. 
According  to  Caylus,  the  neck  was  cut  off  below  and  fitted  on  to  a Roman  draped  bust  which  he  severely 
criticizes.  lie  says  further  : 1 Ce  buste  dtait  dans  le  cabinet  de  M.  le  chancelier  de  Pontchartrain.’  Probably  it 
had  been  recently  sold  and  sent  to  England.  The  Petworth  collection  was  being  formed  at  the  time  Caylus  wrote 
(1750 — 1760;  cf.  Michaelis,  loc.  cit.)  For  the  new  possessor  the  Roman  bust  may  have  been  replaced  by  a 
nude  Greek  one.  The  other  replicas  are  : (a)  a poor  copy,  lately  at  the  art  dealer  Abbati  in  Rome — see  Bull.  d. 
Inst.  1867,  33  (Helbig) ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  ix.  36  ; Annali,  1871,  279  (Conze)  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  84 
(from  the  cast),  (b)  A fragment  of  the  right  half  of  the  head,  found  at  Treves — see  Hettner,  Die  Rom. 
Steindenkmdler  des  Provinz.  Mus.  zu  Trier,  No.  695.  According  to  Loschcke,  apud  Hettner,  loc.  cit.,  the  head 
comes  rom  a relief.  Loschcke  informs  me  that  the  relief  belonged  to  the  incrustation  of  the  Thermae,  where 
famous  athlete  statues  had  been  copied  in  relief  on  the  scale  of  the  originals,  (c)  In  the  Palazzo  Riccardi  in 
Florence,  left  of  the  doorway  leading  to  the  staircase — Dutschke,  ii.  1S2. 

4 '1  he  woollen  fillet  which  was  given  to  the  victor  in  addition  to  the  wreath  was  called  filrpa  in  the  earlier 
period  (cf.  Pinch  01.  9,  84  ; Isth.  4,  62  ; Bbckh,  Expl.  p.  193)  ; as  was  also  the  similar  fillet  used  in  symposia 
and  worn  by  Dionysos  (cf.  Samm.  Sabouroff,  Taf.  23). 


Y 


MYRON 


162 

here  evidently  desired  to  vary  for  once  the  ordinary  arrangement.  The  locks  of  hair 
fall  so  freely  over  the  chaplet  that  at  the  back  they  almost  conceal  it.  On  the  crown 

of  the  head  and  also  on  the  left  side 
above  the  chaplet  is  a rectangular 
broken  surface,  which  proves  the 
right  arm  to  have  rested  on  the 
head  with  the  hand  hanging  over 
on  the  left  side.1  The  head  is 
slightly  inclined  to  the  left.  The 
expression  is  one  of  complete  re- 
pose, to  which  the  motive  of  the 
arm  on  the  head,  as  in  the  famous 
statues  of  Apollo  and  of  Dionysos, 
would  further  contribute. 

In  an  athlete,  it  is  true,  this 
attitude  is  open  to  another  interpre- 
tation. It  occurs  in  representations 
of  athletes  cleaning  themselves 
with  the  strigil  : the  youth  places 
one  hand  above  his  head  in  order 
to  scrape  himself  under  the  arm 
with  the  other,  as  for  example  in 
a statuesque  figure  from  a fifteenth- 
century  Attic  grave-relief.2  But 
the  tranquillity  of  this  head,  and 
above  all  the  festive  wreath  of  the 
victor,  exclude  the  notion  of  a 
youth  scraping  or  anointing  him- 
self, and  still  more  of  course  the 
idea  of  a youth  exercising.  The 
victor  must  therefore  have  been  represented  in  repose,  in  which  case  the  left 
arm  would  also  require  a certain  support.  The  leaning  attitude,  adopted  for 

the  gentler  divinities,  would  of  course  be  quite  out  of  keeping  for  an  athlete. 
It  might  therefore  be  suggested  that,  resting  firmly  on  the  right  leg,  he  supported 
himself  lightly  with  the  left  hand  upon  an  athletic  weapon,  the  akontion  or 
short  spear,  something  in  the  manner  of  the  young  athlete  on  a Spartan  relief.3 
This  would  denote  him  a pentathlete  or  conqueror  in  the  five  combats,  as  already 
hinted.  In  the  relief  the  athlete  is  further  characterized  as  a pentathlete  by  the 

1 This  broken  surface  occurs  both  on  the  Petworth  and  Abbati  copies.  Conze  was  the  first  to  interpret  it 
correctly. 

2 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gibsabg.  1017  ; for  the  date  cf.  Samm.  Sabouroff,  '\.  Introd.  p.  41,  note  9.  Here  the  left 
hand  is  laid  on  the  head  ; cf.  Annali , 1862,  Tav.  M.  Note  also  the  copy  of  a statue  on  a wall  in  Pompeii,  Rom. 
Alitth.  1888,  p.  200,  fig.  2,  where  the  right  arm  lies  on  the  head  ; the  action  is  Lysippian  in  character.  The 
motive  of  the  Skopasian  head  of  an  athlete  in  Athens  {Annali  d.  Inst.  1876,  Tav.  G;  Friederichs-Wolters, 
Gipsabg.  1300)  is  not  quite  clear  ; the  right  hand  rests  on  the  head,  and  the  left,  which  probably  held  the  strigil,  is 
close  to  the  head.  In  the  head  we  are  now  discussing  this  cannot  be  the  motive,  as  in  that  case  the  rough  surface 
on  the  top  of  the  head  would  have  to  be  much  larger.  Cf.  a relief  on  a marble  seat  in  Turin  (Diitschke,  iv.  311)  ; 
between  Ionic  pillars  is  a figure  (evidently  in  imitation  of  a statue)  of  a youth  holding  his  right  arm  over  his  head 
and  slinging  round  his  neck  a sword,  the  belt  of  which  he  holds  in  his  right  hand.  (Diitschke  took  the  sword  for 
a bow. ) 

3 Arch.  Zeitg.  1883,  Taf.  13,  2 ; p.  228  (Milchhofer). 


Fig.  64. — Profile  of  athlete.  (Petworth  Coll.) 


THE  PETWORTH  ATHLETE 


163 

addition  of  the  springing  weights  in  the  right  hand,  as  the  spear  alone  might  in  this 
case  be  open  to  misinterpretation.  Of  this  there  would  be  no  danger  in  a statue 
with  the  victor’s  chaplet,  and  bearing  besides  its  appropriate  inscription.  An  athlete 
statue  thus  reconstructed  would  be  briefly  described  in  the  late  Greek  art  jargon 


Fig.  65  — Head  of  an  ath’.ete.  (In  the'collection  of  Lord  Leconfield,  at  Petworth.) 


as  a 1 doryphoros,’  like  the  famous  athlete  of  Polykleitos,  who  also  carried  the 
short  spear,  the  ctkontion  and  not  the  doru,  in  his  left  hand.1 

1 This  is  evident  from  the  careful  copy  on  the  Berlin  gem,  Tolken,  Kl.  iv.  249.  It  belongs  to  the  same  class 
of  stones  as  the  Natter  Amazon  gem.  In  Ath.  Mittli.  iii.  p.  292,  note  2,  I laid  stress  on  the  incorrectness  of 
calling  an  athlete  a Doryphoros,  but  I now  think  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Dorypliori  of  Pliny  as  statues  of 
victors  is  too  probable  on  other  grounds  to  be  invalidated  by  these  considerations.  Cf.  infra  on  Polykleitos,  p.  228. 
— The  length  of  the  athlete’s  casting  spear  was,  as  we  know  from  the  Spartan  relief  and  many  vase-paintings, 
about  the'height  of  a'youth. 


164 


MYRON 


Now,  although  Pliny1  mentions  a Doryphoros  among  the  celebrated  works  of 
Kresilas,  it  would  be  presumptuous  to  ascribe  this  work  to  Kresilas  solely  on 
this  ground  ; it  is  the  style  which  definitely  points  to  his  authorship.  This  style 
has  been  generally  described  as  fourth-century  Attic.2  But  the  head  is  certainly 
not  of  the  usual  Attic  tj^pc — its  fellow  would  be  looked  for  in  vain  on  the  numerous 
Attic  reliefs — and,  more  than  that,  it  has  all  the  marks  not  of  fourth-  but  of  fifth- 
century  work.  This  may  be  recognized  in  the  treatment  of  the  hair  alone,  with 
its  separate  tight  curls  and  the  arrangement  over  the  ears,  and  is  seen  still  more 
decisively  in  the  eyes  and  adjoining  parts.  Comparison  with  the  fourth-century  Attic 
type  of  youth,  so  admirably  shown  on  grave-reliefs,  or  with  the  Skopasian  athlete-head 
in  Athens,  who  also  rests  his  hand  upon  his  head,  brings  home  the  complete 
contrast  of  epoch  more  forcibly  than  words  can  describe  it.  Everything  is  different, 
but  the  most  readily  appreciable  difference  lies  in  the  stylistic  treatment  of  hair 
and  eyes. 

The  familiar  indications  are  easy  to  recognize  : the  eyes  are  long  and  heavy- 
lidded,3  with  strongly  marked  lachrymal  glands;  the  two  vertical  depressions 4 start 
upwards  from  the  angle  formed  by  eyebrows  and  nose  ; the  root  of  the  nose  has  the 
formation  more  especially  pointed  out  in  the  Diomede  and  the  Medusa,  but  its 
modulations  are  more  delicate  ; the  nose  has  the  narrow  rounded  bridge  with  the  rise 
in  the  centre  like  the  Diomede  ; the  modelling  of  the  forehead  is  almost  identical  with 
that  of  the  Diomede,  but  somewhat  flatter  and  daintier.  We  recognize  Kresilas  again 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  face  with  its  rich  modelling,  though  he  makes  it  softer  and 
more  refined,  and  also  a little  shorter  in  proportion  to  the  nose,  than  he  had  done 
hitherto.  All  these  forms  are  but  the  direct  continuation  of  what  was  observed  iii  the 
Amazon.  Since  however  in  the  Riccardi  replica  {supra,  p.  161,  note  3 (c))  the  cheeks 
and  the  parts  about  the  mouth'present  a much  simpler,  harder,  and  severer  appearance, 
owing  to  the  absence  of  the  detailed  modelling  of  the  flesh  given  in  the  Petworth  head, 
and  the  bony  structure  is  more  prominent,  it  is  just  possible  that  the  Petworth  head, 
like  the  Munich  copy  of  the  Diomede,  represents  a slight  intensification  of  the 
original.  The  ear  with  the  long  narrow  lobe  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Diomede. 
Finally,  the  hair  again  envelops  the  skull  in  plastic  abundance;5  its  main  motive 
consists  in  the  little  tight  curls  with  twisted  ends  already  studied  in  the  Perikles.  In 
some  places,  as  for  example  in  the  chaplet  above  the  left  temple,  may  be  recognized 
the  old  severe  primitive  form  ; but  the  hair  as  a whole  has  become  more  mobile,  freer 
and  more  elegant,  and  its  tangled  irregularity  is  yet  more  natural.  In  the  centre 
above  the  forehead  the  hair  is  slightly  parted  ; but  this  only  serves  to  accentuate 
its  capricious  character,  for  it  falls  quite  unsymmetrically  over  the  chaplet,  and  the 

1 Cf.  p.  IIS-  Only  one  other  Doryphoros  is  named,  that  of  Aristodemos,  probably  a Peloponnesian  artist 
who  stood  in  close  relation  to  Lysippos,  and  who  seems  to  have  enjoyed  a general  reputation  for  his  statues  of 
athletes  (Overbeck,  S.  Q.  1605). 

2 Michaelis,  loc.  cit . : ‘ Attic  ...  no  doubt  of  the  fourth  century.’  He  recalls  the  Diadumenos  which  Kalli- 
stratos  describes  and  assigns  to  Praxiteles  ; but,  apart  from  the  fact  that  this  eK<ppacns  only  shows  a general 
acquaintance  with  the  usual  Diadumenos  motive,  and  is  therefore  worthless  (cf.  Jahrb.  d.  Ver.  d.  Alt.-Fr.  im 
Rheinl.  vol.  xc.  p.  65  seq.),  the  motive  of  the  youth  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Diadumenos. — Conze,  loc.  cit., 
fixed  the  time  more  exactly  about  400 — 350  B.C.,  and  Plelbig  {Bull.  1867,  33)  recognized  a stage  preparatory  to 
the  later  Attic  school.  Only  Brunn,  apud  Julius,  Annali,  1875,  p.  31,  dates  the  head  correctly  in  the  fifth 
century,  since  he  compares  it  with  the  sculptures  of  the  Parthenon. 

3 The  length  of  eye-slit  is  the  same  as  in  the  Perikles  head  (36  mm.  with  tear-gland,  circa  31  without,  height 
11  mm.)  The  mouth  is  only  ij  eye-length  without  tear -gland  (46  mm.) 

4 These  are  distinct  in  all  the  replicas. 

5 Although  the  Riccardi  copy  only  indicates  the  hair,  it  well  reproduces  this  plastic  character, 


KRESILAS  AND  MYRON 


165 


chaplet  itself  diverges  from  strict  symmetry  in  allowing  the  two  strips  to  overlap  and 
the  ends  to  show  on  the  one  side  above,  on  the  other  below  the  band.  Evidently 
the  artist,  like  his  contemporary  the  older  Praxiteles,  had  fallen  under  the  spell  of 
asymmetria . 


IX.  Relation  of  K res  Has  to  Myron. — The  Riccardi  Head. — The  Diskobolos  and  kindred 
Heads. — Pythagoras  of  Rhegium. — Myronian  Portrait-heads. 

Among  contemporary  works,  those  which  have  just  been  associated  with  the 
name  of  Krcsilas  form  a conspicuous  group  ; and  this  would  be  yet  more  obvious  had 
we  the  bronze  originals  instead  of  marble  copies,  which  are  all  more  or  less  indifferent 
and  inaccurate.  For  all  the  works  that  have  been  quoted  seem  to  be  without 
exception  copied  from  bronzes,  and  it  is  only  among  the  bronze  workers  that  Pliny 
names  Kresilas. 

The  development  of  the  formal  elements  in  our  artist  corresponds  in  general  to 
that  observed  everywhere  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.  Yet  the  style  of 
Kresilas  has  met  with  no  proper  continuation,  only  with  an  occasional  imitation  in 
late  antiquity  of  certain  details.1  While  the  personal  style  of  Pheidias  carried  all 
before  it  to  the  farthest  corners  of  the  Greek  world,  the  art  of  Kresilas  remained 
an  individual  art,  confined  within  narrow  limits.  It  does  however  point  backwards  ; 
the  style  of  those  works  attributed  to  Kresilas  hangs  on  by  a thousand  threads  to 
earlier  manifestations,  and  it  is  at  once  an  attractive  and  fruitful  task  to  examine  the 
soil  in  which  the  individuality  of  the  Ivresilaian  works  had  its  rise. 

The  inquiry  must  start  from  a work  that  is  unmistakably  to  be  recognized  as  the 
forerunner  of  the  Diomede.  Only  head  and  breast  are  preserved,  in  a copy  in  the 
Riccardi  Palace  at  Florence,  which  is  of  bust-form  (Fig.  66).2  Like  the  Diomede,  this 
youthful  hero  wears  a garment  on  the  left  shoulder,  falling  in  perfectly  simple  folds. 
He  also  has  the  close-cropped  curling  hair  and  the  swollen  ears,  though,  as  the 
garment  proves,  he  is  no  athlete,  but,  again  like  the  Diomede,  a hero  noted  for  his 

1 A signal  instance  of  this  kind  of  imitation  is  afforded  by  the  famous  Pourtales  Apollo  and  the  Apollo 
from  the  Baths  of  Caracalla,  now  both  in  the  Brit.  Mils.  (Overb.  Apollo,  p.  141,  Nos.  5,  6 ; cf.  Brunn,  Gb/terideale, 
p.  84  seq. ) From  the  similarity  in  their  proportions  and  main  features,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  two  heads 
are  merely  different  versions  of  one  and  the  same  original,  while  from  the  qualities  common  to  both  it  is  evident 
that  this  original  was  not  materially  earlier  than  Alexander.  Now  the  copy  from  the  Baths  of  Caracalla  displays 
exclusively  the  forms  proper  to  that  period  : the  eye  is  deeply  recessed  and  exceedingly  pathetic  (the  god  is 
supposed  to  be  sunk  in  musical  inspiration),  the  hair  aims  dexterously  at  the  most  realistic  treatment.  In  a word, 
there  reigns  complete  harmony  between  the  conception  and  the  stylistic  forms.  The  fidelity  of  this  copy  to  the 
lost  original  is  attested  by  the  existence  of  an  exact  replica  in  the  Palazzo  Giustiniani  (Ov.  Apollo,  p.  142,  No.  7 ; 
until  the  statue  on  which  this  head  is,  is  properly  cleaned,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  they  belong  together  or 
not).  In  the  Pourtales  head,  on  the  contrary,  we  note  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  between  style  and 
conception  : an  artist  enamoured  with  the  style  of  Kresilas  has  evidently  attempted  to  introduce  the  formal 
qualities  of  that  master  into  a head  of  totally  different  style.  Accordingly,  the  deeply  recessed  and  pathetic  eyes 
have  been  transformed  into  Kresilaian  eyes  with  strong  prominent  lids  and  overshadowed  by  sharp  angular  brows  ; 
in  the  hair  conventional  little  curls  with  twisted  ends  replace  the  naturalistic  fall  of  the  loop  of  hair  over  the 
forehead,  and  the  loop  itself  hangs  more  over  to  the  front , further,  the  mouth  is  sharply  outlined,  and  the  brow 
has  touches  that  recall  the  Amazon. 

2 Dtitschke,  Zerstr.  Bi/dw.  in  Florenz;  Heydemann,  Mitth.  cuts  Ober - u.  Mittelitaliens,  Taf.  6,  p.  101  ; 
Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  458  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  361.  The  adaptation  as  bust  is  ancient  ; right  side 
of  the  breast  with  the  sword-belt  is  new.  The  original  is  now  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  the  palace  ; its  place  in  the 
cortile  has  been  taken  by  a cast.  There  are  two  replicas  of  the  head:  (a)  in  the  Pal.  Conserv.  (No.  5)  in  Rome — 
poor,  restored,  and  worked  over  ; (/;)  in  Berlin,  Skulpt.  472  (Fig.  67  on  p.  167) — better,  though  superficial  copy  ; 
modelling  of  the  forehead  good  ; the  whole  of  the  back  of  the  head  is  restored.  In  addition  to  these  two,  Arndt 
thinks  that  a bust  in  the  Loggia  Scoperta  of  the  Vatican  which  has  been  turned  into  a Hermes  is  a further  third 
replica. 


Fig.  66. — Head  of  a hero  (Palazzo  Riccardi,  Florence) 


THE  HERO  RICCARDI 


167 


strength.  There  is  a further  resemblance  in  the  broad,  forcible  chin,  in  the  slightly 
opened  mouth,  the  heavily  lidded  eyes,  in  the  modelling  of  the  forehead  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  framed  by  the  hair.  Yet  all  these  forms  are  essentially  harder 
and  more  archaic:  the  hair,  for  instance,  still  lies  upon  the  skull  like  a heavy  cap, 


Fig.  67, — Replica  of  the  Riccardi  head  (Berlin). 


instead  of  growing  from  it ; no  depression  as  yet  indicates  the  actual  crown,  and  the 
separate  masses,  unnatural  in  their  extreme  smallness,  are  only  as  it  were  carved  on 
the  surface,  almost  without  relief ; it  is  only  in  the  mass  that  the  hair  has  any  plastic 
effect.  Moreover,  the  skull  is  higher  at  the  crown,  and  its  outline  is  rounder — not  so 
angular  as  in  the  Diomede.  Finally,  the  hero’s  attitude  and  bearing  was  simple  and 


MYRON 


1 68 

constrained,  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Diomede,  which  vibrates  with  energy.  He 
stood  quietly,  with  his  upper  arm  lowered,  and  his  head  turned  slightly  to  the  right  ; 
the  conception  lacks  that  expression  of  conscious  energy  and  mental  strain  which 
animates  the  Diomede.  Kresilas  must  have  known  the  original  of  this  work,  certainly 
twenty  to  thirty  years  older  than  his,  and  must  have  stood  in  close  relation  to  a 
master  whose  creation  he  was  further  to  develop.  Now  by  the  help  of  the  extant 
copies  of  the  Myronian  Diskobolos  it  becomes  possible  to  determine  with  comparative 
certainty  who  this  older  master  was  : it  was  Myron.1 

The  head  of  the  Diskobolos  of  Myron  is  known  to  us,  not  only  from  the  Massimi 
statue,1  in  which  it  is  attached  to  the  body,  but  from  at  least  three  separate  copies. 
The  first  of  these  three  heads  is  the  one  that  has  passed  from  Steinhauser’s  possession 
to  the  Museum  of  Bale  ;3  it  has  been  considerably  restored  ; the  second  head,  in  the 
collection  at  Catajo,  is  intact  save  for  the  front  part  of  the  nose,  which  is  modern 
(Fig.  68)  ;4  the  third  head,  which  is  at  Berlin  (Fig.  69), 5 though  much  worked  over 
and  restored,  is  yet  of  considerable  value.  A comparison  of  these  four  replicas  of 
the  head  shows  that  the  copyists  allowed  themselves  great  freedom  in  the  execution 
of  detail,  and  especially  so  in  the  case  of  the  hair.  It  is  evident  that  in  this  respect 
the  Berlin  head  presents  by  far  the  closest  and  most  faithful  copy  of  the  original  : 
the  elaborate  detail  of  the  hair  is  obviously  intended  to  imitate  the  chiselled  bronze 
locks  of  the  severe  period,  and  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  an  invention  of  the 
copyist.  On  the  other  hand,  the  greater  freedom  and  lightness  of  treatment  in  the 
case  of  the  other  heads  is  doubtless  to  be  ascribed  to  carelessness  or  neglect  on  the 
part  of  the  copyist.  The  case  is  identical  with  that  of  the  two  replicas  of  the  Riccardi 
type  mentioned  above.  The  copyist  of  the  Catajo  head  has  treated  the  original  of 
Myron  with  the  greatest  freedom,  keeping  only  to  the  general  character  of  the  close- 
cropped  hair,  and  indicating  the  detail  boldly  and  openly  according  to  his  own  ideas. 
He  has  even  chosen  to  modify  the  characteristic  wavy  dent,  made  by  the  outline  of 
the  hair  over  the  forehead.  The  Massimi  copyist  was  more  careful,  though  he  too  has 
for  the  most  part  dispensed  with  the  delicate  little  fringed  curls  which  encircle  the 
head,  or  has  at  any  rate  simplified  them  to  a great  extent.  It  is  only  about  the 
forehead  that  he  has  represented  them  at  all  elaborately  ; and  even  here  he  is  content 
to  suggest  them  without  working  them  out.  Behind  the  ear  and  on  the  neck  he  has 
omitted  them  altogether,  and  substituted  simpler  motives.  In  this  one  respect  the 
Steinhauser  head,  which  reproduces  the  little  tight  curls  behind  the  ear  and  in  the 
neck,  is  almost  as  faithful  a copy  as  the  Berlin  head.  With  the  help  of  the  latter 
it  becomes  possible  to  realize  what  care  Myron  must  have  bestowed  on  the  hair  of 
his  Diskobolos.  On  the  upper  part  of  the  head  the  individual  locks  only  slightly 
turn  up  at  the  ends,  while  on  neck  and  brow  they  form  a fringe  of  tightly  twisted 
curls.  In  the  Riccardi  bust  the  hair  is  treated  in  precisely  the  same  manner,  and 
produces  the  same  singular  effect  of  a cap  fitting  close  to  the  head— similarities  that 
lead  one  to  infer  that  Myron  was  the  artist  of  both  works.  In  the  case  of  the 

1 Wolters  (G/psabg.  458)  was  the  first  to  recognize  this,  though  he  certainly  went  too  far  in  speaking  of 
‘ vollslandiger  Uebereinstimmung,  ’ and  in  considering  the  Riccardi  head  to  be  almost  a replica  of  the 
Diskobolos. 

2 Reproduced  from  the  old  well-known  photograph,  Collignon,  Hist,  de  la  Sculp.  Gr.  i.  PI.  xi.  ; Brunn- 
Bruckmann,  Dcnkmdler.  An  excellent  small  plaster  reduction  of  the  original  can  be  purchased  in  Rome.  1 he 
Munich  Bronze  (F.-W.  453)  is  late  Roman  ; only  the  motive — not  the  head — derives  from  Myron’s  statue. 

3 The  head  was  first  recognized  by  Ilelbig,  Bull.  d.  lust.  1870,  12.  Cf.  Kalkmann,  Prop,  dcs  Gesichls , 
P-  74- 

4 Dutschke,  No.  699  ; Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverkauj , Nos.  54,  55-  5 Besclu,  d.  Ant.  Skulpt.  474. 


THE  DISKOBOLOS  OF  MYRON 


169 


Riccardi  head,  however,  the  hair  is  richer  and  more  plastic  in  its  effect  ; the  curls  of 
the  fringe  are  somewhat  larger ; and  the  line  of  hair  upon  the  forehead  falls  quite 
simply  and  naturally  without  forming  the  dent  noted  in  the  Diskobolos. 

In  the  shape  of  the  face  there  is  considerable  agreement  among  the  different 
replicas  of  the  Diskobolos,  and  if  we  compare  them  further  with  the  Riccardi  head  the 
general  resemblance  of  the  two  types  is  very  striking.  It  lies  especially  in  the  formation 
and  modelling  of  the  forehead,  in  the  straight,  sharply  defined,  and  projecting  eyebrows, 


Fig.  68. — Head  of  Diskobolos  (Catajo). 


in  the  spring  of  the  nose  and  its  naturalistic  formation,  and  in  the  full  lines  of  the  lips. 
Such  points  of  difference  as  are  worth  noticing  rest  chiefly  on  the  obvious  endeavour 
to  give  a different  character  to  the  two  personages  represented.  The  pentathlete  who 
is  hurling  the  discus  is  of  comparatively  slight  build,  and  consequently  the  lower  part 
of  his  face  is  less  powerful  and  more  rounded  than  that  of  the  confident  hero,  with 
the  swollen  ears,  pourtrayed  in  the  Riccardi  bust.  Other  differences  show,  as  do  those 
noted  in  the  treatment  of  the  hair,  that  the  hero  is  a somewhat  later  work  by  the 
artist  of  the  Diskobolos  ; for  instance,  whereas  the  lips  of  the  Diskobolos,  though  not 
tightly  set,  arc  closed,  in  the  Riccardi  head  the  lips  are  parted  ; further,  the  expression 

Z 


i ;o 


MYRON 


of  the  Diskobolos  is  still  constrained,  while  that  of  the  boxer  is  more  open.  Again, 
the  ears  in  the  Riccardi  head  are  placed  somewhat  lower  ; the  skull  is  somewhat  less 
high,  its  upper  line  inclining  more  to  the  horizontal,  and  the  head  when  looked  at 
from  above  appears  a trifle  longer  and  narrower  than  that  of  the  Diskobolos.  These 
differences  are  after  all  insignificant,  and  in  the  main  the  two  heads  are  very  similar. 
Finally,  we  must  notice  the  eyes.  Even  the  Diskobolos  has  somewhat  heavy  thick  lids, 
that  lie  in  a natural  manner  on  the  eyeball  ; still,  the  Riccardi  head  shows  considerable 
advance  in  the  attempt  to  give  substance  and  a natural  look  to  the  upper  lid. 

If  the  Riccardi  head  is  a copy  of  an  original  by  Myron,  executed  at  a somewhat 
later  date  than  the  Diskobolos,  it  follows  that  Myron  must  have  been  the  master  who 
influenced  Kresilas  in  his  Diomede.  And  it  further  becomes  evident  that  Kresilas, 


Fig.  69. — Head  of  Diskobolos  (Berlin). 


both  in  the  representation  of  detail,  such  as  the  eye  and  hair,  and  in  his  attempts  at 
expressing  individuality,  merely  developed  what  Myron  had  begun. 

It  has,  however,  been  lately  urged  by  P.  Herrmann  that  the  Riccardi  head 
differs  from  the  Myronian  type,  and  is  to  be  classed  with  the  head  of  a youth  from 
Perinthos,  now  at  Dresden  (Fig.  70).1  The  only  point  I can  admit  in  this  contention 
is  that  the  Perinthos  head  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  Myron.  P.  Herrmann  quite 
correctly  points  out  that  it  differs  from  that  of  the  Diskobolos  in  having  a shorter 
crown,  which  when  seen  from  above  appears  rounder,  but  he  should  have  also  noticed 
that  the  Riccardi  head  has  a still  longer  crown  than  the  Diskobolos,  and,  further, 
that  the  two  last  works-  are  linked  together,  as  we  saw,  by  a thoroughly 
characteristic  treatment  of  the  hair,  while  in  the  Dresden  head  the  locks  of 

1 Ath.  Mittli.  1891,  p.  313  set],  PI.  IV.  V, 


PYTHAGORAS 


171 


hair  are  curled  all  over  the  head  with  considerable  uniformity,  in  a manner 
differing  totally  from  the  Myronian,  and  recalling  on  the  whole  the  hair  of  the  Lapith, 
who  is  being  bitten  by  a Centaur,  from  the  west  pediment  of  Olympia  (a  comparison 
made  by  Herrmann  himself). 

Another  still  more  essential  difference  between  the  Riccardi  and  Dresden  heads 
consists  in  the  formation  of  the  eyes.  Herrmann  rightly  criticizes  the  prominent 
angular  lids  of  the  Dresden  head,  which  produce  a wholly  unnatural  effect,  ‘ as  though 
they  possessed  no  power  of  move- 
ment.’ This  is  precisely  the  manner 
characteristic  of  the  art  of  Kritios 
and  Nesiotes,  and  of  the  sculptors 
of  the  Olympia  pediments  ; and  one 
of  the  most  precious  results  obtained 
from  studying  the  extant  copies  of 
the  Diskobolos  is  the  knowledge 
that  Myron  treated  the  eyes  in  quite 
a different  way.  The  lids  of  the 
Myronian  statues  lie  naturally  on 
the  eyeball,  and  their  edges  are 
neither  prominent  nor  broad  nor 
angular,  as  in  the  Dresden  head.  In 
this  respect  the  Riccardi  head  marks 
a further  advance  upon  the  Disko- 
bolos. We  find  a similar  treatment 
of  the  eyes  to  the  Myronian  in  the 
works  ascribed  above  (p.  54)  to 
Hegias,  the  master  of  Pheidias,  and 
to  Kalamis  (p.  81).  Finally,  the 
lifeless  ‘ perfectly  horizontal  line’  of 
the  mouth  of  the  Dresden  head 
offers  a complete  contrast  to  the  life- 
like modelling  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Riccardi  bust,  which  in  this  point 
too  is  so  clearly  in  Myron’s  style  as 
we  know  it  from  the  Diskobolos. 

The  Perinthos  head  belonged  to 
the  statue  of  a victorious  pankratiast, 
and  there  are  a few  heads  of  athletes  which  are  really  allied  to  it  : first  among  these 
is  the  boxer  in  the  Louvre  j1  next,  and  in  a somewhat  later  manner,  an  athlete  of  the 
Giardino  Boboli,  formerly  erroneously  taken  for  Harmodios  ;2  and,  lastly,  a statue  of  an 
athlete  in  Lansdowne  House.3  The  expression,  as  well  as  the  round,  rather  short 
crown,  the  hair,  the  flat  eyes,  and  the  wide  horizontal  opening  of  the  mouth  common 
to  all  these  heads,  seem  to  me  to  link  them  together  indissolubly,  and  to  mark  them 

1 Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  2;  Anna//,  1874,  Tav.  I ; phot.  Giraudon,  1207.  Cast  of  the  head  in  the  Ecole  des 
Beaux-Arts  and  in  Bonn. 

2 Mon.  d.  Inst.  viii.  46  ; Arndt- B ruck mann,  Einzelverk.  96 — 98  ; Dlitschke,  Zerstr.  Bi/dn'.  in  Florenz,  No. 
77-  Cf.  Berlin.  Philol.  Wochensclirift,  1888,  1448.  Separate  casts  of  the  head  and  of  the  torso  in  the  Ecole 
des  Beaux-Arts,  at  Paris,  No.  2844. 

3 Michaelis,  p.  446,  36.  The  head  belongs  to  the  statue,  and  resembles  that  of  the  Louvre  boxer,  especially 
in  the  eyes  and  forehead,  though  the  statue  itself  is  later  in  style. 


172 


MYRON 


off  sharply  from  the  type  created  by  Myron.  The  statues  in  the  Louvre  and  the 
Giardino  Boboli 1 apparently  belong  to  the  heads  set  upon  them  : they  represent  the 
athletes  in  violent  movement.  The  artist,  who  evidently  was  a man  of  note,  since 
his  statues  were  afterwards  copied,  must  have  been  a contemporary  of  Myron, 
inasmuch  as  he  vied  with  him  in  representing  athletes  in  violent  exertion  ; but  his 
system  of  forms  has  more  in  common  with  Kritios  and  the  sculptures  of  Olympia 
than  with  Ilegias  and  Myron.  There  is  no  artist  to  whom  all  the  characteristics 
noted  would  apply  so  well  as  to  Pythagoras  ; the  Perinthos  head  possibly  gives  us  a 

copy  of  one  of  his  earlier  athletes, 
produced  about  B.C.  480.'2  Thus 
we  should  at  last  have  obtained 
approximately  reliable  material 
for  recovering  the  style  of  this 
remarkable  master,  of  whose 
celebrated  athletes  some  copies 
must  have  survived.  In  the  whole 
range  of  Greek  sculpture,  how- 
ever, the  series  of  statues  just 
discussed  seem  to  me  the  only 
ones  that  can  be  brought  into 
connexion  with  him.3 

It  follows  that  the  well- 
known  head  from  the  Ince  Blun- 
dell collection  (Fig.  71)  must  be 
classed,  not  with  the  Perinthos 
head  as  Herrmann  had  it,  but 
with  the  Riccardi  head,  and  is 
therefore  also  Myronian.4  The 
hair  agrees  minutely  with  that 
of  the  Riccardi  bust,  even  the 
little  tapering  locks  about  the 
forehead  being  practically  iden- 
tical in  both.  The  eyelids  are 
also  thoroughly  Myronian,  and 
differ  totally  from  those  of  the  Dresden  head  ; indeed,  they  already  have  some- 
thing of  the  manner  of  Kresilas.  Further,  the  formation  of  the  part  between 
upper  lid  and  brow  deserves  close  attention,  as  it  marks  an  advance  upon  the 

1 The  neck  in  both  is  a modern  restoration  ; yet  the  marble  and  the  workmanship  of  head  and  body  seemed 
to  me,  after  repeated  examination,  to  correspond  exactly  in  character  and  movement.  Moreover,  on  the  left-hand 
side  of  the  upper  part  of  the  head  of  the  Louvre  athlete  is  a great  square  puntello  which  indicates  that  the  left 
arm  was  raised  above  the  head  ; this  same  motive  is  displayed  by  the  torso.  The  Boboli  statue  too  is  natuially 
that  of  an  athlete  in  active  movement  ; the  left  arm  is  parrying,  the  right  striking  out. 

2 Herrmann  and  Arndt  also  thought  of  Pythagoras  in  connexion  with  the  Perinthos  head  (Ath.  Ihllh. 
1891,  333).  Concerning  the  athletes  of  Pythagoras  and  the  probability  of  their  attitude  being  one  of  movement, 
cf.  Reisch,  Weihgeschenke,  p.  44. 

3 Further,  a much-mutilated  statue  of  a youth  in  Olympia  {Arch.  Zeit.  18S0,  51,  erroneously  described  as 
Apollo — solely  because  of  the  headdress)  may,  I think,  be  regarded  as  a Roman  copy  after  Pythagoras.  It 
belongs  to  the  close  of  the  severe  style  ; the  upper  part  of  the  body  is  slightly  twisted,  the  head  inclined  towaids 
the  side  of  the  free  leg  ; the  drapery  is  falling  from  the  left  arm.  In  close  relation  to  it  comes  a torso  of  a youth 
in  the  Lateran  (No.  52). 

4 Arch.  Ztg.  1874,  Plate  3.  Kekule  was  tile  first  to  pronounce  the  head  Myronian.  Cf.  Friederichs-Wolters, 
Gifsabg.  459. 


Fig.  71. — Head  in  the  collection  at  Ince  Blundell  Hall  (Lancashire). 


MYRON’S  TREATMENT  OF  HAIR 


173 


Diskobolos,  and  is  far  more  realistic  than  in  the  Dresden  head.  Quite  different 
from  the  latter  also  is  the  full  sensuous  mouth.  Yet  just  as  the  Riccardi  head, 
although  it  recalls  the  manner  of  Myron,  differs  totally  from  the  Diskobolos  in 
expression  and  character,  so  does  the  Ince  Blundell  head  differ  in  certain  particulars 
from  both.  The  features  are  more  closely  packed,  the  modelling  throughout  is 
rounder,  and  the  cheeks  fuller.1  The  shape  of  the  head  resembles  the  Riccardi  head, 
though  when  seen  from  above  it  presents  a longer,  narrower  ellipse.  On  the  forehead 
the  transitions  between  the  different  planes  are  effected  with  peculiar  softness  and 
delicacy.  The  full  mouth  indicates  a powerful  and  sensuous  nature,  but  the  expression 
of  the  face  is  sombre  and  gloomy.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the  swollen  ears : the 
man  is  a boxer,  and,  as  I have  shown  elsewhere,  it  was  a favourite  device  to  represent 
this  class  of  athletes  with  a sombre  look.2  The  head  has  doubtless  retained  much  of  a 
real  model. 

The  Ince  Blundell  and  Riccardi  heads  belong  together  to  the  same  period,  but 
are  later  than  the  Diskobolos.  The  strikingly  different  individuality  of  the  three  heads 
need  not  perplex  us  ; for  from  what  artist  should  we  expect  such  variety  sooner  than 
from  Myron,  who  multiplicasse  veritatem  videtur  ? It  is  specially  interesting  to  learn 
from  the  Ince  Blundell  head  that,  side  by  side  with  the  usual  broad  type  of  face, 
Myron  also  had  a narrower  type  with  a more  delicate  root  to  the  nose,  inasmuch 
as  we  discovered  that  the  works  of  Kresilas  also  exhibit  both  types. 

We  are  now  in  a position  to  understand  an  adverse  criticism  which  Pliny  passed 
upon  Myron  : capillum  quoque  et  pubem  non  emendatius  fecisse  quavi  rudis  antiquitas 
instituisset.  The  Berlin  copy  of  the  Diskobolos  bears  witness  to  the  archaic  cha- 
racter of  the  hair  in  this  famous  masterpiece,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  the  critic, 
judging  from  his  Lysippian  standpoint,3  should  have  viewed  with  contempt  this 
manner  of  treating  the  hair,  and  merely  seen  in  it  a sign  of  rudis  antiquitas.  The  criti- 
cism recorded  by  Pliny  has,  however,  generally  been  taken  to  mean  that  Myron  bestowed 
no  care  or  pains  upon  the  hair — an  interpretation  which  is  entirely  contradicted  by 
the  Berlin  head.  As  a fact,  in  comparison  with  the  artists  of  his  time,  Myron  treats 
the  hair  with  exceptional  richness  and  naturalness.  How  keenly  he  appreciated  its 
varying  effects  is  evident  from  the  trouble  he  has  taken  to  distinguish  between  the 
little  curling  fringe  of  hair  and  the  masses  on  the  top  of  the  head.4 

Closely  bound  up  with  this  ancient  criticism  upon  Myron’s  treatment  of  hair  is 
another  that  accused  him  of  neglecting  to  express  the  ‘ sensations  of  the  mind  ’ : 
corporum  terms  curiosus  animi  sensus  non  expressit.  This  is  perfectly  intelligible  in  the 
case  of  the  Diskobolos  : the  quiet  impassive  expression  of  the  head  clashes  with  the 
violent  movement  of  the  body.  The  critic  was  quite  justified  in  his  remark,  judging,  as 
he  did  in  the  case  of  the  hair,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  fully  developed  art  of  Lysippos. 
But  he  would  not  have  been  justified  had  he  wished  to  criticize  from  the  historical 
standpoint ; for  the  absence  of  emotional  expression  was  merely  a characteristic  of  all 


1 This  difference  comes  out  clearly  in  the  measurements  : in  both  heads  (the  Ince  and  the  Riccardi)  the 
length  of  the  lids  (34 — 35  mm.)  and  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  and  the  distance  from  nose  to  brow  (70  mm. 
in  each  case),  are  identical  ; but  the  distance  between  the  inner  comers  of  the  eye  differs  markedly  (Rice.  34,  Ince 
29  mm.),  as  also  the  width  of  the  mouth  (Rice.  51—52,  Ince  44(7  mm.) 

2 Cf.  Olympia , vol.  iv.  Die  Bronzen,  text  p.  10  seq. 

3 Cf.  my  treatise  Plinius  u.  seine  Quellen,  p.  69  seq.  (ix.  Suppl.  vol.  of  Fleckeisen' s Jahrbuch). 

4 The  pubes  of  the  Diskobolos  is  treated  with  just  the  same  care  : it  is  arranged  in  four  rows  of  small,  flat 
curls,  elaborately  worked  in  a manner  suggestive  of  the  most  careful  chiselling  ; those  of  the  upper  rows  are 
comparatively  larger  and  less  curled  Ilian  those  of  the  lower  ones.  The  pubes  seems  most  accurately  rendered  in 
the  torso  of  the  Capitol  (Ilelbig,  Museums , 446).  The  affinity  to  the  hair  of  the  Berlin  head  is  striking  in  this 
case.  Next  in  accuracy  comes  the  London  copy  ; the  Vatican  statue  is  less  exact. 


Fig.  72.— Head  in  Brescia.  (By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann,  Munich.) 


PORTRAIT-HEADS  BY  MYRON 


175 


work  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  fifth  century,  though  it  was  less  striking  in  the  case  of 
figures  in  repose  than  in  those  represented  like  the  Diskobolos  in  violent  movement. 
Yet  if  we  compare  the  head  of  the  Diskobolos  to  other  works  of  about  the  same 
date,  such  as  those  athletes  we  saw  reason  for  attributing  to  Pythagoras,  or  to 
the  so-called  Apollo  on  the  Omphalos,  or  to  the  sculptures  of  Olympia,  we  shall 
indubitably  find  that  a more  refined  and  spiritual  life  pervades  it  than  is  the  case 
in  any  of  those  other  works.  But  it  is  precisely  because  this  head  transcends  by  its 
spiritual  refinement  that  we  realize  the  limitations  that  separate  it  from  works  of 
the  free  style— that  we  realize  all  the  more  keenly  a certain  fixedness  and  dulness 
in  its  expression.  And  this  anomaly  may  have  influenced  in  some  measure  that 
unjust  ancient  criticism.  We  shall  see,  however,  that  Myron  himself  at  a later  stage 
rose  beyond  his  own  earlier  limitations  (see  p.  18 1). 

Before  passing  to  works  which  lead  us  gradually  away  from  the  Diskobolos 
to  a somewhat  later  period  in  the  artist’s  career,  we  must  consider  one  head  which 
exhibits  the  stage  of  art  that  immediately  preceded  the  Diskobolos.  It  is  the  head 
of  a youth  in  Brescia  (Fig.  72), 1 whose  affinities  with  the  head  of  the  Diskobolos 
seem  to  me  unmistakable,  although  everything  about  the  head  points  to  a cruder 
and  an  earlier  artistic  phase.  The  origin  of  the  characteristic  dent  formed  by  the 
hair  on  the  forehead  of  the  Diskobolos  is  explained  in  the  Brescia  head,  where 
it  forms  an  angle  instead  of  a curve,  and  practically  amounts  to  a parting  over  the 
forehead.  The  treatment  of  the  hair  itself  is  very  similar  in  both  heads  : on  the 
raised,  modelled  masses  the  individual  masses  are  delicately  carved  ; they  represent 
short,  tangled  hair,  with  a tendency  to  curl  thickly  at  the  ends  ; a narrow  circlet 
presses  into  this  soft  mass.  Moreover,  the  head  in  its  general  outline,  especially  in 
the  powerful  development  of  the  skull  at  the  back  and  in  the  line  from  the  circlet 
to  the  neck,  resembles  the  head  of  the  Diskobolos,  except  that  it  is  not  quite  so 
high.  On  the  other  hand,  the  head  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  Diskobolos  in  the 
modelling  of  the  forehead  (which  is  also  lower),  in  the  rendering  of  the  eyelids 
(especially  of  the  part  between  the  upper  lid  and  the  eyebrow),  of  the  mouth,  and 
of  the  whole  lower  part  of  the  face.  The  form  of  face  so  vividly  recalls  the 
type  of  Hagelaidas  as  it  appears  in  the  figure  copied  by  Stephanos,2  that  in  spite 
of  the  difference  of  expression  it  appears  to  derive  from  it.  The  points  of  affinity 
with  the  Diskobolos  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  the  Brescia  head  is  a copy 
of  an  early  work  belonging  to  Myron,  in  which  he  combined  the  type  current  in  the 
Hagelaidas  schools  with  the  treatment  of  hair,  the  shape  of  head,  and  the  expression 
individual  to  himself.  This  result  is  specially  interesting,  because  it  seems  to 
confirm  the  tradition  that  Myron  was  a pupil  of  Hagelaidas — a question  to  which 
we  shall  have  to  return. 

Fig-  73  reproduces  a head  in  the  Villa  Albani.3  It  is  obviously  a portrait, 
the  unusually  wide  mouth  and  thin  parted  lips 4 being  distinct  traits  of  individu- 
ality. Hair  and  beard  are  short.  All  these  characteristics,  joined  to  the  erect 

1 Diitschke,  Oberital.  vol.  iv.  No.  336.  Length  of  face  0-14.  Earlier  notices  : Conze,  Arch.  Anz.  1867,  108 
(who  calls  the  beautiful  head  ‘a  wretched  copy’)  ; Kekule,  Annali,  1865,  6 2 ; Gruppe  des  Kiinstlers  Menelaos, 

P-  4°.  4 (Benndorf)  ; Heydemann,  Mitth.  acts  Oberital.  p.  29,  No.  44,  3. 

2 This  resemblance  had  also  struck  Conze,  loc.  cit. 

3 La  Villa  Albani  descritta,  No.  744i  ‘ Pericle,’  evidently  so  called  on  account  of  the  similarity  of  beard 
and  hair  to  the  Perikles  of  Kresilas.  Brunn,  Bull.  d.  Lust.  1851,  88,  proposed  to  recognize  Peisistratos,  but  cf. 
Ifelbig,  Museums,  834. 

The  width  of  the  mouth  (51 — 52  mm.)  measures  1 2 the  full  length  of  the  eye  (29 — 30  mm,  from  corner  to 
corner).  Nose  to  arch  of  brows  60  mm. 


Fig.  73. — Portrait-head  in  the  Villa  Albani.  (From  the  cast.) 


A A 


Fig.  74. — Portrait-head  in  the  Hermitage.  (From  the  original.) 


178 


MYRON 


carriage  of  the  head  and  its  straightforward  glance,  produce  an  impression  of  great 
energy.  The  hair  frames  the  forehead  in  a manner  that  recalls  the  Riccardi  head 
and  the  head  at  Ince;  on  the  top  it  is  left  blocked  out  in  masses  which  only 
slightly  curl  at  the  end,  while  over  brow  and  neck  it  spreads  into  a profusion 
of  ringlets  in  the  true  Myronian  manner.  Quite  in  Myron’s  style  too  are  the 
form  of  the  eyelids  and  the  tear-glands,  the  forehead  that  bulges  out  towards  the 
root  of  the  nose,  the  round  cranium,  and  the  slight  depression  in  the  neck.  It  is 
evident  however  that  the  work  is  somewhat  later  than  the  Diskobolos,  and  equally 
evident  that  in  it  we  have  the  immediate  forerunner  of  the  Perikles  and  of  the 
Vatican  ‘ Alkibiades.’  The  form  of  the  moustache,  which  leaves  the  upper  lip  un- 
covered, and  the  shape  of  the  beard  recall  in  particular  analogous  traits  in  the 
Perikles.  Since  there  were  plenty  of  occasions  for  the  private  dedication  of  portraits 
in  the  days  of  Myron,  and  since  we  have  absolutely  no  nearer  data  to  go  upon,  it  is 
naturally  impossible  to  name  the  personage  pourtrayed. 

A head  in  the  Hermitage  (reproduced  from  the  original,  Fig.  74) 1 has  a still 
more  marked  individuality,  though  in  point  of  style  it  is  closely  akin  to  the  preceding. 
The  treatment  of  hair  and  beard,  the  heavy  eyelids  with  the  strongly  defined  tear- 
glands,  the  .rounded  though  elongated  shape  of  the  head,  with  the  slight  depression  in 
the  neck,  are  all  obviously  the  same  in  both  heads.  The  outline  of  the  profile  of  the 
Hermitage  head  is  further  surprisingly  like  that  of  the  Massimi  Diskobolos.  This 
head  appears  to  stand  in  much  the  same  relation  to  the  Albani  portrait  that  the 
Ince  Blundell  boxer  does  to  the  Riccardi.  It  belongs  to  the  small-faced  type,2  in  which 
the  corners  of  the  eyes  are  nearer  together,  the  root  of  the  nose  and  bridge  more 
delicate,  the  mouth  smaller.  These  common  characteristics  receive  a singularly 
animated  and  individual  expression  by  the  addition  of  a number  of  interesting- 
details.  First  we  note  the  mouth,  with  full,  parted  lips,  very  different  to  the  thin 
lips  of  the  Albani  portrait ; then  the  moustache  with  its  curling  ends,  the  rich  beard, 
elegantly  parted  in  the  middle,  thus  leaving  the  line  of  the  lower  lip  uncovered.  The 
forehead  is  modelled3  like  that  cf  the  Ince  Blundell  boxer.  The  eyes  do  not  look 
straight  out,  but  the  gaze  inclines  a little  to  the  left.  The  whole  expression  is 
indicative  not  so  much  of  prowess,  as  in  the  Albani  portrait,  but  rather  of  cleverness, 
of  worldliness,  and  of  a certain  refined  sensuousness.  We  can  scarcely  doubt  that  we 
possess  in  this  head  a copy  of  a work  by  Myron,  belonging  to  the  same  period  as  the 
Ince  Blundell  boxer,  and  affording  fresh  proof  of  the  artist’s  remarkable  power  of 
reproducing  individuality. 

We  can  associate  with  this  portrait  a work  whose  subject  is  taken  from  the  circle  of 
the  heroes — a head  of  Herakles  over  life-size,  which  was  found  in  the  Villa  of  Hadrian, 
near  Tivoli,  and  is  now  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  7 5).4  The  individuality  of  the 
hero  is  thoroughly  accentuated,  yet  the  characteristics  of  style  are  essentially  those 
which  we  observed  in  the  head  from  the  Hermitage.  The  eyes  are  unusually  big  and 
round,  rather  than  long — a trait  which  especially  distinguishes  Herakles  in  archaic  art  ; 

1 Guedeonow,  Mustle  de  Sculp.  Ant.  No.  68. 

2 Clear  length  of  eye  36 — 37  mm.,  without  the  gland  32  mm.  ; this  last  measurement  is  also  that  of  the 
distance  between  the  inner  comers  of  the  eyes.  The  width  of  the  mouth  amounts  to  A the  length  of  the  eye 
without  the  gland  (48  mm.)  Nose  to  the  arch  of  the  brows  71  mm.  (=  twice  the  length  of  the  eye).  Length 
of  ear  62  mm. 

3 Unfortunately  not  clearly  enough  indicated  in  our  reproduction. 

4 Well  produced  in  Specimens  of  Anc.  Sculp,  i.  9,  10.  Less  well  in  Anc.  Marbles  of  the  Brit.  Mils.  i.  12. 
My  notice  of  the  head  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon , 2163,  10,  was  influenced  by  this  untrustworthy  reproduction.  Only 
the  front  part  of  the  nose  and  the  edges  of  the  ears  have  been  restored. 


MYRONIAN  HERAKLES 


179 


on  Attic  vases  of  the  severe  style,  for  instance,  dating  about  the  time  of  the  Persian 
wars,  he  is  represented  with  large,  wide-open  eyes.1  Lids  and  glands  arc  rendered  as 
on  the  Albani  and  Hermitage  heads.  The  edges,  too,  of  the  sharply  moulded  lids 
terminate  in  a little  wrinkle,  as  in  the  Riccardi  head.  On  the  sharp  edge  of  the  brow 
the  hair  of  the  eyebrows  is  slightly  indicated — a singularity  which  is  not,  1 think,  to  be 


Fig.  75.— Herakles  in  the  British  Museum. 


ascribed  to  the  copyist,  but  to  the  artist’s  search  after  realism,  or  after  some  touch 
that  should  emphasize  the  powerful  nature  of  the  hero.  Hair  and  beard  arc  quite 
short,  and  arranged  in  small  tight  curls.  The  vases  teach  us,  again,  that  these  short 
ringlets  belong  to  the  typical  conception  of  Herakles  in  archaic  Attic  art.  The 
moustache  alone  is  smooth,  and  is  treated  similarly  to  that  of  the  Albani  head.  The 
framing  of  the  forehead  by  the  hair  resembles  the  heads  already  mentioned,  with  this 

1 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2161  seq. 


i8o 


MYRON 


difference,  that  the  forehead  in  this  case  is  lower  and  wider,  and  that  just  over  the 
centre  the  little  locks  are  brushed  up,  obviously  in  order  to  heighten  the  impression 
of  strength.  At  the  sides  and  over  the  temples,  however,  the  hair  of  the  Herakles 
is  treated  similarly  to  that  of  the  other  Myronian  heads  we  have  been  discussing. 
The  modelling  of  the  forehead  is  also  the  same,  except  that  the  forms  arc  more 
pronounced.  We  should  also  notice  two  furrows  in  the  forehead,  which  start  upwards 
from  the  point  where  the  line  of  the  eyebrows  meets  the  root  of  the  nose  ; this  is 
another  detail  in  which  the  art  of  Myron  appears  as  the  immediate  predecessor  of 
that  of  Kresilas.  The  nose,  too,  is  interesting  in  this  respect.  Enough  of  it  is 
preserved  to  show  how  realistically  the  ridge,  which  in  this  case  is  naturally  made 
wide,  broadens  out  in  the  middle.  The  lips  are  full  and  slightly  parted,  as  in  the 
previous  heads  ; the  line  of  the  under  lip  is  left  uncovered  by  the  beard,  as  in  the 
Hermitage  portrait.  The  lower  part  of  the  cheek-bones  is  strongly  defined  under  the 
beard.  The  car,  however,  is  not  represented  as  swollen.  The  copyist  has  made  the 
curls  of  hair  stand  out  in  very  realistic  fashion  by  means  of  under-cutting — -doubtless 
imitating  in  this  particular  the  sharply  chiselled  bronze  of  the  original.  The  shape  of 
the  cranium  is  round,  and  the  depression  that  usually  marks  the  transition  to  the 
occiput  is  omitted,  owing  to  the  unusual  prominence  of  the  muscles  of  the  neck  that 
begin  at  this  point.  Thus  at  every  point  in  this  head  we  note  the  attempt  to  emphasize 
the  character  of  the  hero,  and  the  conception  of  him  that  was  thus  established  inspired 
all  subsequent  representations  of  Herakles,  even  down  to  the  age  of  Lysippos.  The 
unnatural  size  of  the  eyes  was,  however,  abandoned  at  a later  date.  The  relation  of 
this  head  to  the  heads  previously  discussed  is  so  close,  in  spite  of  certain  deviations 
necessitated  by  the  different  nature  of  the  subject,  that  I incline  to  attribute  it  also  to 
Myron.  We  know  of  as  many  as  three  statues  of  Herakles  from  his  hand  : of  these, 
one  made  a short  sojourn  in  Rome,1  and  another  remained  there.2  It  is  probable 
therefore  that  in  our  store  of  copies  more  than  one  Herakles  after  Myron  may  be 
preserved.3 


X.  Statues  by  Myron. — Diskobolos  and  Marsyas  compared. — Kindred  Works. 

So  far  we  have  dealt  solely  with  heads  which  can  be  traced  to  Myron  : we  now 
turn  to  whole  statues.  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if  among  the  numerous  copies  which 
have  been  preserved  there  were  not  found  a considerable  number  after  statues  of  an 
artist  who,  precisely  in  the  age  in  which  the  copies  were  made,  was  always  named 
among  the  most  eminent  of  sculptors,  along  with  Pheidias,  Polykleitos,  Praxiteles, 
and  Lysippos. 

The  two  statues  of  which  we  have  undoubted  copies,  the  Diskobolos  and  the 
Marsyas,  afford  a firm  basis  for  further  investigation.  In  both  the  body  is  represented 
in  violent  exertion,  in  both  the  energies  of  body  and  of  mind  are  concentrated  in  one 
dominating  movement.  The  prevailing  note  of  Myron’s  artistic  temperament  was 
doubtless  love  of  movement,  though  he  cannot  have  always  had  an  opportunity  for 
indulging  it.4  His  statues  of  the  gods  must  have  been  represented  in  tranquil  attitudes, 
according  to  the  fashion  of  his  time.  Coins  show  us  the  Athena  in  the  Marsyas  group 

1 Strabo,  xiv.  p.  637,  6 = Overbeck,  S.  Q.  536.  2 Plin.  xxxiv.  57. 

3 See  infra,  p.  202,  with  regard  to  a probable  second  Herakles  after  Myron. 

4 Cf.  Kekule,  Kopf  des  Praxit.  Hermes , p.  15  seq. 


DISKOBOLOS  AND  MARSYAS 


1 8 1 


standing  calmly,1  while  the  Riccardi  bust  proves  that  Myron  had  represented  one  hero 
at  least  in  an  attitude  of  repose.  The  same  marked  powers  of  individualization  that 
we  noted  in  the  treatment  of  the  heads  make  themselves  felt  in  the  bodies  of  the 
Diskobolos  and  of  the  Marsyas.  The  first  shows  us  a well-bred  youth,  carefully 
trained  and  developed  in  the  palaestra,  executing  a studied  movement  with  graceful 
precision.  The  second  statue  shows  us  a wild,  sinewy  creature  of  the  woods, 
accustomed  to  move  by  bounds  and  springs,  ignorant  of  any  training,  tormented  by 
unbridled  passions,  and  at  this  moment  a prey  to  curiosity  and  fear  alike.  The 
contrast  to  which  we  allude  runs  through  the  whole  of  each  figure,  and  may  be 
observed  from  head  to  foot.2  Roth  hair  and  beard  are  in  the  case  of  Marsyas  treated 
in  an  exceptionally  characteristic  manner  ; the  great  moustache  is  rough  and  bristly  ; 
it  is  not  connected  with  the  rest  of  the  beard,  which  is  itself  divided  into  two  distinct 
parts,  consisting  of  the  hair  flowing  from  the  chin  and  of  the  whiskers.  The  hair  of 
the  head  not  only  bristles  up  in  front,  but  grows  also  on  the  neck  in  short,  flame-likc 
wisps  that  go  up  instead  of  down.  This  arrangement  of  hair  is  affected  by  our 
modern  clowns,  and  suits  the  excitable  nature  of  the  droll  Seilcnos  much  better  than 
those  heavy  masses  of  hair  flowing  downwards  from  the  back  of  the  head  that  were 
generally  given  to  Satyrs  in  Myron’s  time.3  With  the  exception,  however,  of  the  front 
wisps,  the  hair  lies  close  to  the  small  head,  the  round  outline  of  which  passes  into  the 
neck  without  the  break  noted  in  other  Myronian  heads.  Thus  Myron,  who  had  given 
to  the  Diskobolos  the  long  crown  of  the  aristocrat,  gave  to  the  Seilcnos  the  small 
round  head  of  the  plebeian.4 

The  Marsyas  undoubtedly  bears  the  stamp  of  a later  date,  and  we  can  see  that 
the  character  of  Myron’s  works  varies  considerably  according  to  the  time  of  their  pro- 
duction. Further,  while  in  the  Diskobolos  the  expression  of  countenance  is  quite 
unaffected  by  the  violent  movement  of  the  body,  in  the  Marsyas  expression  and 
movement  are  in  perfect  harmony.  Astonishment  and  fear  combined  arc  admirably 
expressed  in  the  head.  That  ancient  criticism  about  the  want  of  continual  expression 
in  Myron  applies,  like  that  about  his  archaic  treatment  of  the  hair,  properly  only  to 
the  Diskobolos  and  kindred  heads,  and  not  to  the  Marsyas  ; and  it  would  be  unfair  to 
allow  it  to  influence  us  in  our  judgment  of  Myron’s  artistic  capabilities. 

The  more  marked  the  differences  between  the  Marsyas  and  the  Diskobolos,  the 
more  must  we  insist  on  their  common  elements.  To  these  belong  above  all  the 
severity  and  the  spareness  of  the  forms  in  both  statues.  Even  in  the  Diskobolos,  who 
has,  it  is  true,  a somewhat  fuller  body,  there  is  nothing  of  the  nature  of  soft  flesh  ; 
indeed  the  forms,  in  their  severe  sobriety,  may  almost  be  accused  of  hardness  and 
meagreness,  though  the  spirited  action  of  the  statue  helps  us  to  overlook  this  defect. 

1 L.  von  Sybel,  Athena  it.  Marsyas,  Bronsemiinze  des  Bert.  Museums,  Marburg  1S79. 

2 Even  the  pubes  is  treated  characteristically.  In  the  case  of  the  Diskobolos  the  hair  is  cut  straight  off 
above  and  arranged  in  the  same  little  curls  as  in  the  hair  of  the  head  (cf.  supra,  p.  173)  ; in  the  case  of  the 
Seilenos  it  takes  the  form  of  larger,  coarser,  curls,  and  spreads  in  a triangular  shape  high  up  the  belly. 

3 The  nearest  analogy  to  the  head  of  Marsyas  and  its  flat  short  hair  is  presented  in  the  Argive  bronze, 
reproduced  (very  inadequately)  Rom.  Mitt.  1889,  p.  170,  which  is  undoubtedly  later  than  Myron.  This  bronze 
justifies  the  supposition  that  in  his  Marsyas  Myron  possibly  allowed  himself  to  be  influenced  by  Argive  models. 

4 It  is  only  the  head  of  the  Lateran  statue  that  can  be  considered  as  an  approximately  faithful  copy  of  the 
original.  The  replica  Coll.  Barracco,  PI.  37  and  37  a,  which  is  usually  taken  as  better  (see  Friederichs-Wolters, 
Gipsahg.  455,  and  more  recently  Collignon  in  Melanges  d’ Archeol.  et  d’ Hist.  1890,  p.  1 iS  sqq.  PI.  2 ; Hist,  de  la 
Sculpture  Crecque,  i.  p.  468),  proves  on  closer  examination  to  be  decidedly  inferior.  The  copyist  of  the  Barracco 
head  has  obviously  taken  exception  to  the  simplicity  and  hardness  of  the  original,  and  tried  to  improve  upon  it  ; 
he  has  introduced  richer  and  more  flowing  but  more  conventional  lines  ; the  typical  characteristics  dwelt  on 
above,  such  as  the  treatment  of  the  moustache,  its  separation  from  the  rest  of  the  hair  of  the  free,  the  peculiar 
treatment  of  the  hair  of  the  head — all  this  is  abandoned  and  made  commoner. 


1 82 


MYRON 


If  one  imagines  the  Diskobolos  standing  upright  in  repose,  and  then  compares  it  with 
the  so-called  Apollo  on  the  Omphalos,  this  peculiarity  comes  out  very  strongly.  The 
Apollo  has  full,  soft  flesh  ; the  Diskobolos,  flat,  spare  forms.  In  this  point  Myron  comes 
into  intimate  connexion  with  the  group  of  works  which  I have  felt  obliged  to  ascribe 
to  the  school  of  the  Argive  Hagelaidas.1 

In  the  Diskobolos,  further,  the  obvious  difficulties  caused  by  the  violent  bend  of  the 
body  are  by  no  means  quite  overcome  : this  is  especially  striking  in  the  representation 
of  the  lower  part  of  the  trunk.2  Moreover,  the  treatment  of  the  planes,  which  remind 
one  of  work  in  relief,  may  be  taken  as  a sign  of  confusion  of  ideas,  due  probably  to  the 
fact  that  just  about  this  time  figures  in  motion  were  being  transferred  from  relief  to  the 
round.  The  Marsyas,  on  the  other  hand,  is  already  conceived  throughout  for  execu- 
tion in  the  round. 

We  accordingly  find  that  the  ancient  orators  name  him  among  the  last  masters 
of  the  severe  style.3  The  culminating  point  of  his  career  would  be  reached  about 
465 — 450,  a view  which  has  lately  been  confirmed  by  the  discovery  that  his  son  Lykios 
was  already  an  artist  of  independent  position  in  446  B.C.,  or  at  any  rate  at  a period 
previous  to  the  building  of  the  Propylaia.4  Thus  Myron  flourished  before  the  mighty 
artistic  revolution  which  found  expression  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  century  in 
the  sculptures  of  the  Parthenon,  where  only  a few  metopes  preserve  that  severer  style 
which  we  have  noted  as  a characteristic  of  his  works.5 *  Our  next  task  is  to  find  out 
whether  some  conception  can  be  arrived  at,  through  extant  copies,  of  the  statues  of 
Myron  that  stood  in  repose. 

Among  extant  statues  there  is  only  one  which  I could  at  once  bring  into 
immediate  relation  to  the  Diskobolos.  It  is  a Mercury  in  the  Vatican,  which, 
though  fully  deserving  the  epithet  ‘bad’  given  it  by  BrunnG  (for  it  is  an  extremely 
poor  copy),  is  yet  of  considerable  significance  (Fig.  ,/6).7  The  family  likeness  of  the 
head  to  that  of  the  Massimi  Diskobolos  is  self-evident  : it  is  particularly  striking  in 
the  expression  and  the  shape  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  with  its  full  mouth  and 
round  chin.  The  framing  of  the  forehead  by  the  hair  resembles  the  Riccardi  and 
kindred  heads,  and  the  forehead  itself,  in  spite  of  the  poorness  of  the  copy,  preserves 
the  modelling  characteristic  of  Myron.8  The  profile  shows  substantial  agreement  with 
that  of  the  Diskobolos  ; even  the  cars  have  the  characteristic  wide  shape,  with  the  small 
lobes.  The  hair  is  arranged  in  little  curls,  which  in  the  original  would  doubtless  appear 
fuller  than  in  the  copy.  The  upper  eyelids  are  somewhat  heavy.  The  turn  of  the 
head,  and  the  quiet  upright  pose  of  the  figure  with  hanging  arms,  correspond  exactly 
to  what  we  should  imagine  was  the  pose  of  the  statue  from  which  the  Riccardi  bust 
was  copied.  The  weight  of  the  statue  is  thrown  on  the  right  leg,  leaving  the  left  leg 
comparatively  free,  though  it  is  not  drawn  back,  but  is  planted  with  full  sole  on  the 
ground.  The  somewhat  severe,  spare,  and  wiry  forms  correspond  on  the  whole  with 
those  of  the  Diskobolos.  The  feet,  for  instance — in  the  rendering  of  which  the  copyist 


1 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogramm , p.  134  seq. ; supra,  p.  $2  seq. 

2 Cf.  Jul.  Lange,  Fremstilling  af  Menneskeskikkelsen  {Abh.  d.  Kopenhag.  Akad.  1892),  pp.  394,  397,  462. 

3 Cicero  and  Quinctilian  in  the  oft-quoted  passages  (Overbeck,  S.  Q.  600 — 602). 

4 Lolling,  AeA rlov,  1889,  181  seq. 

5 I should  not  like  however  to  bring  either  these  or  the  metopes  of  the  Theseion  into  direct  relation  with 

Myron  himself.  Cf.  supra,  p.  46.  u Brunn,  K.  G.  i.  p.  613. 

7 Vat.  Gall,  de/le  Statue  (Not.  417)  ; Mus.  Pio-Cl.  iii.  41.  The  head  had  been  severed  from  the  body,  but 
certainly  belongs.  Nose,  both  forearms,  and  the  piece  of  hanging  drapery  are  restored. 

8 Unfortunately  not  visible  on  the  photograph  from  which  our. illustration  is  taken. 


Fig.  76. — Mercury  in  the  Vatican. 


184 


MYRON 


has  succeeded  best — show  in  their  vigorous  shapeliness,  and  the  realism  with  which 
even  the  veins  are  indicated,  a special  affinity  to  the  feet  of  the  Diskobolos.1  On  the 
other  hand,  the  chlamys,  which  is  fastened  on  the  right  shoulder  with  a great  round 
button,  cannot  have  been  part  of  the  original  statue,  and  was  evidently  added  by  the 
copyist  ; for  the  character  of  the  folds  is  purely  Roman — indeed,  it  may  be  definitely 
stated  that  the  addition  of  the  chlamys  is  a favourite  device  of  a certain  group  of 
copyists  of  the  later  Empire.  For  instance,  it  was  given  to  the  later  replicas  of  the 
famous  ‘Meleager’  after  Skopas  ; the  earlier  copies  are  without  it.2  Some  copyists 
also  gave  a chlamys  to  a statue  of  Apollo  of  which  the  original  must  have  been  very 
like  the  bronze  Apollo  Sabouroff  in  Berlin.3  These  instances  could  easily  be  multi- 
plied ; the  last  one  is  particularly  interesting,  because  the  chlamys  of  this  Apollo 
agrees  so  closely  with  that  of  our  Hermes  that  one  might  almost  assume  both  statues 
to  have  been  executed  in  the  same  workshop  at  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  A.n.4 

Further,  the  wings  on  the  head,5  which  are  attached  in  a manner  both  thoroughly 
inorganic  and  thoroughly  non-Greek,  are  certainly  an  addition  of  the  copyist,  just  like 
the  wings  that  appear  from  time  to  time  on  heads  imitated  from  Polykleitos.  In 
Roman  times  it  was  not  uncommon  to  turn  Greek  figures  of  youths  into  statues  of 
Mercury. 

It  is  now  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  original  by  Myron  represented 
a hero,  a mortal,  or  Hermes  (without  the  wings  on  the  head).  Pose  and  attitude 
have  the  merit  of  being  natural  and  unstudied.  The  youth  stands  at  ease,  though 
not  at  rest ; ready  at  any  moment  for  energetic  action.  This  is  quite  a contrast 
to  those  attitudes  of  rest  that  seem  to  have  been  the  ideal  of  the  art  of  the  Pelo- 
ponnesos. 

A few  other  statues  may  be  grouped  about  the  Vatican  Mercury.  In  the  very 
same  room  of  the  Vatican — unfortunately,  in  a very  unfavourable  light— is  a statue 
of  a bearded  man  (Fig.  77)  G restored  as  a Poseidon  ; in  pose  and  in  attitude,  as  also 
in  the  spare,  attenuated  forms  of  the  body,  it  agrees  very  closely  with  the  Mercury. 
Both  arms  hang  in  the  same  way,  and  the  head  has  the  same  turn.  Although  the 
copyist,  who  belonged  at  the  earliest  to  the  age  of  the  Antonincs,  has,  like  the  artists 
of  the  sarcophagi  executed  at  that  time,  worked  the  hair  elaborately  by  means  of  the 
drill,  it  is  still  clear  that  the  type  of  head  is  of  the  fifth  century,  and  on  close 
examination  traits  may  be  detected  which  recall  the  technique  of  Myron.  Hair  and 
beard,  in  spite  of  the  modernized  appearance  due  to  the  drill,  still  bear  witness  to  the 

1 The  pubes  is  also  identical. 

2 List  of  replicas,  Rom.  llilth.  1889,  p.  219  (Graf).  The  copies  with  the  chlamys  (which  moreover  varies 
in  each)  all  belong,  so  far  as  I can  tell,  at  the  earliest  to  the  later  Empire  ; the  Vatican  and  the  Borghese  statue 
in  particular  are  characteristic  works  of  the  age  of  the  Antonines.  The  beautiful  Berlin  torso  without  the 
chlamys  is  undoubtedly  older. 

3 Skulpt.  No.  51  ; Overbeck,  Apollon , p.  226,  5.  For  the  Sabouroff  bronze  see  Sabouropf  Coll.  PL  8 n ; 
Overbeck,  loc.  cit.  p.  227. 

4 Cf.  also  the  very  similar  chlamys  of  the  statue  of  the  youthful  Marc.  Aurelius  mentioned  above,  p.  92,  note  4, 
and  other  portrait-statues  of  the  same  period.  Visconti  also  ( AIus.  Pio-Clem.  iii.  PL  41)  saYs  thM  Mercury  is 
certainly  not  older  than  the  age  of  the  Antonines,  possibly  much  later  : he  quotes  in  support  the  inscription  on 
the  plinth,  which  however  need  not  necessarily  be  of  the  same  date  as  the  statue. 

5 The  right  wing  is  ancient. 

Gall,  dcl/e  Statue , No.  394  ; Mils.  Pio-Clem.  i.  32  ; Clarac,  PL  743>  1 79*5  > Overbeck,  li.it nst myth.  Part  ii. 
Poseidon , p.  287,  No.  14,  p.  289  seq.  ; for  the  head,  cf.  p.  267,  No.  10  ; Atlas,  PL  XI.  9,  head  in  profile  ; XII. 
35,  the  whole  statue.  Both  arms  from  the  middle  of  the  upper  arm  are  restored,  as  also  the  lower  parts  of  the  legs 
and  the  attributes,  fish  and  trident.  The  portion  of  the  shaft  of  the  trident  against  the  upper  part  of  the  arm 
is  ancient  ; its  squareness  led  Visconti  to  recognize  in  it  the  remains  of  a trident.  However,  as  the  fragment  of 
shaft  had  been  separately  attached,  we  cannot  feel  certain  that  it  belonged  to  the  original. 


Fig.  77.— Statue  restoredjas  Neptune  (Vatican). 


B B 


MYRON 


1 86 


severer  style  of  the  original,  in  the  simple,  heavy  strands  that  curl  up  at  the  ends. 
The  semicircular  framing  of  the  forehead  by  the  hair,  the  vigorous  modelling  of  the 
forehead  which  projects  towards  the  eyebrows,  and  the  slightly  open  mouth  are  all 
familiar  to  us.  The  hair  is  brushed  up  from  the  forehead.  Certainly  this  statue  is  no 
portrait,  but  an  ideal  type,  in  which  power  and  majesty  are  united.  The  statue  may 
well  represent  a god,  perhaps  Poseidon,  as  Visconti  conjectured.1 

Even  if  the  head  has  lost  by  the  hand  of  the  copyist  something  of  its  original 
severity,  the  statue,  whose  connexion  with  the  Vatican  Mercury  is  obvious,  yet  serves 
to  give  us  a notion  of  the  dignified  manner  in  which  Myron  represented  the  gods.  The 
conception  is  really  godlike  and  quite  distinct  from  human  types  ; the  same  power  of 
individualization  makes  itself  felt  here  that  was  noticed  in  the  other  works  attributed  to 
Myron.  The  attempt  to  individualize  the  gods  must  have  been  quite  novel  in  those 
days  ; for  instance,  the  hair  that  rises  up  from  the  brow  of  the  ‘ Poseidon  ’ had  not  yet 
become  a fixed  characteristic  of  the  sons  of  Kronos,  and  was  apparently  now  intro- 
duced for  the  first  time. 

There  is  another  statue  very  closely  related  to  our  Vatican  Neptune  ; I mean  the 
statue  to  which  a beautiful  head  in  the  Berlin  collection,'2  reproduced  in  Fig.  78, 
belonged.  If  we  disregard  superficial  mannerisms  due  to  the  copyists,  the  general 
likeness  of  the  head  to  that  of  the  Neptune  is  very  striking.  The  hair  of  the  massive 
beard,  without  being  deeply  carved,  produces  a rich  and  varied  effect,  vividly  recalling 
the  beard  of  the  Marsyas  ; the  moustache,  with  the  simple,  straight  lines  and  its  clear  line 
of  demarcation  against  the  upper  lip,  is  akin  to  the  moustache  of  the  Albani  ‘ Peisi- 
stratos  ’ and  to  that  of  the  Perikles.  The  hair — exactly  like  that  of  the  Vatican  Neptune 
—is  treated  after  a method  which  disappears  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  (cf. 
supra , p.  19)  : it  radiates  from  the  crown  of  the  head  towards  a circlet  that  con- 
fines it  ; below  this  circlet  it  falls  loosely  forward,  forming  a rich  crown  of  locks  ; 
on  the  neck  it  is  just  left  long  enough  to  cover  tire  nape.  The  hair  rises  up  on  the 
centre  of  the  forehead  to  show  the  growth,  and  then  falls  away  gently  to  either  side  ; 
in  the  Neptune,  however,  the  side  locks  are,  so  to  speak,  forced  to  the  sides  instead  of 
flowing  of  their  own  accord.  Possibly  the  first  arrangement  was  intended  to  suggest 
a mild  and  the  second  a vigorous  nature.  At  the  point  where  the  root  of  the  nose 
meets  the  forehead  there  occurs  the  same  depression  which  we  noticed  in  heads 
by  Kresilas.  In  order  to  emphasize  the  nature  of  the  god,  the  forehead,  as  compared 
with  heads  of  athletes,  assumes  a more  powerful  and  pronounced  form,  though  the 
main  lines  remain  the  same.  The  cranium  is  less  developed  at  the  back,  but  this  is  a 
point  which  I incline  to  charge  the  copyist  with  ; it  is  not  impossible  that  he  was 
limited,  as  was  not  unfrequently  the  case,  by  the  size  of  his  block  of  marble.  The 
well-defined  eyelids  with  the  delicate  little  wrinkle,  the  lachrymal  glands,  the  slightly 
open  mouth — all  recall  the  manner  of  Myron.  The  body  to  which  this  type  of  head 
belonged  forms,  as  we  shall  see,  an  inseparable  group  with  the  Vatican  Mercury  and 
Neptune. 

We  recognize  a replica  of  the  same  head  in  a statue  at  St.  Petersburg  from  the 
Campana  collection  (Fig.  79).3  Though  this  statue  is  poor  enough  in  itself,  it  is 

1 Undoubted  Poseidon  statues,  like  those  in  Scherschell  (Overbeck,  Kunstm.  Atlas , PI.  XII.  34),  may  be 

conceived  as  later  developments  of  the  type  under  discussion.  Cf.  also  coins,  Miiller-Wieseler,  D.  A.  K.  3rd  ed. 
ii.  72  d.  2 Beschr.  d.  Ant.  Skulpt.  No.  158. 

3 Guedeonow,  Mas.  de  Sculpt.  Ant.  314;  d’Escamps,  Marines  de  la  Coll.  Campana , PI.  14.  The  head  had 
been  severed  from  the  body,  but  my  examination  of  the  statue  has  convinced  me  that  it  belongs.  There  are  only 
trifling  restorations  at  the  point  where  it  joins  on  : the  left  side  of  the  head,  the  right  arm,  together  with  the  staff 
of  Asklepios,  the  left  forearm  with  the  flat  cup,  are  restored. 


Fig.  78. — Head  of  a god  (Berlin). 


1 88 


MYRON 


invaluable  for  our  purpose,  inasmuch  as  body  and  head  belong  together.  The  general 
pose  is  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  Mercury,  and  the  same  spareness  is  conspicuous 
in  the  body,  though  the  copyist  has  evidently  tried  to  modify  it.  The  god — for  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  a god  we  have  before  us — wears  sandals,  and  a mantle, 
which  is  flung  over  the  left  shoulder  and  covers  the  whole  lower  part  of  the  body,  but 
in  such  a way  as  to  leave  the  origin  of  the  thighs  free.  This  whole  arrangement  of  the 
mantle,  and  especially  the  portion  of  it  that  falls  from  the  shoulder,  bears  witness  to 
the  severity  of  the  original.  The  simple  straightforward  lines  recall  the  drapery  of  the 
Riccardi  bust.  The  depth  of  the  folds  between  the  thighs  maybe  due  to  the  copyist, 
who  altered  the  shallower  forms  of  the  original,  to  suit  the  taste  of  his  time.  In  the 
arrangement  of  the  drapery  about  the  lower  part  of  the  body  we  recognize  the  hand 
of  the  artist  on  whom  Kresilas  modelled  himself,  when  he  executed  the  mantle  of  the 
Athena  of  Vclletri.  On  the  other  hand,  drapery  like  that  of  the  Zeus  from  the 
eastern  pediment  of  Olympia  (a  statue  which  in  other  respects  is  intimately  related 
to  the  one  under  discussion)  leads  to  the  pictorial  draperies  of  the  Parthenon.  So  we 
may  recognize  two  contemporary  tendencies,  and  we  now  understand  that  Kresilas’s 
treatment  of  drapery  was  historically  a development  of  the  Myronian  manner. 

The  most  probable  interpretation  of  the  statue  is  that  it  represents  Zeus — a view 
brought  home  to  us  by  comparison  with  the  afore-named  Zeus  from  the  eastern 
pediment  of  Olympia.  Both  statues  agree  so  well  in  their  main  features  that  one  is 
tempted  to  conjecture  that  our  type,  with  its  quiet,  simple  lines,  was  known  to  the 
artist  of  the  Olympia  pediment.  The  line  formed  by  the  mantle  on  the  right  hip  is 
just  the  same  in  both,  the  principal  difference  being  that  in  the  Olympian  Zeus  the 
mantle  has  si ipped  off  from  the  left  shoulder  and  has  been  wound  round  the  arm.  The 
interpretation  as  Zeus  is  further  confirmed  by  the  great  likeness  to  a statue  in  the 
Louvre,1  which  is  known  to  represent  Zeus  by  reason  of  the  eagle  sitting  below  and 
of  the  recurrence  of  a similar  type  on  coins.2  In  conclusion,  the  attitude  of  the  statue 
is  favourable  to  the  view  that  the  left  hand  which  hangs  down  grasped  the  sceptre, 
while  on  the  right,  which  is  extended,  was  held  the  thunderbolt  or  the  eagle. 

It  must  be  owned,  however,  that  an  examination  of  the  other  replicas  does  not  at 
first  favour  the  Zeus  theory.  Of  the  eleven  replicas  of  the  Hermitage  statue  that 
are  known  to  me,  four  certainly,  and  a fifth  probably — to  judge  from  the  remaining 
attributes — represented  Asklcpios  ; while  the  others,  though  without  the  attributes  of 
Asklepios,  are  equally  without  those  of  Zeus.3  Still,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  original  represented  Asklepios  : statues  of  this  god  were  relatively  still 

1 Frohner,  No/icc , p.  65,  No.  34;  phot.  edit.  Giraudon,  1224. 

2 Cf.  the  coin  of  Laodikea,  Overbeck,  Zeus,  Miinztaf.  2,  29  ; p.  138. 

3 The  replicas  consist  partly  of  statues  of  the  same  proportions  as  the  Hermitage  statue,  partly  of  statuettes 
of  varying  dimensions.  The  statues  are  : 1.  Berlin,  Beschr.  d.  Ant.  Skulp.  290  (probably  intended  for  an 
Asklepios  rather  than  a Zeus).  2.  Capitol,  lower  hall,  41  : feet,  arms,  whole  of  the  right  breast  new  ; the  head  of 
Zeus  does  not  belong  : the  flatness  and  rigidity  of  the  body,  especially  about  the  navel,  is  characteristic.  3. 
Louvre,  Gall.  Mollien,  No.  2936  : lower  part  of  the  legs  new,  head  does  not  belong  ; the  left  arm  as  far  as  the 
middle  of  the  forearm  preserved.  4.  Rome,  Palazzo  Altemps  : Clarac,  560  A,  1160  D:  Matz-Duhn,  58:  head 
does  not  belong  : the  lower  part  of  the  serpent  staff  is  old  : on  the  feet  Roman  shoes  in  place  of  sandals  : the 
copyist  regarded  the  stouter  covering  for  the  feet  as  more  appropriate  to  Asklepios  : in  the  body  the  severity  of 
the  forms  is  well  preserved.  5.  Pacetti  : Clarac,  545,  1146  : not  known  to  me  in  the  original : the  serpent  staff  is 
stated  to  be  restored.  The  statuettes  are  : 6.  Mus.  Chiaramonti,  1 1 3 : Clarac,  549,  1 1 5 7-  Undoubtedly  Askle- 
pios from  the  votive  inscription,  serpent  staff  restored  : head  does  not  belong.  7.  Mus.  Kircheriano  : feet  and 
arms  new:  head  does  not  belong  : poor.  8.  Cassel,  ii.  15:  head  does  not  belong,  forearms  new  : the  severity 
of  the  style  is  well  preserved.  9.  Mus.  Torlonia  : Visconti,  Tav.  x.  39:  serpent  staff  old,  head  modern. 
10.  Giustiniani : Clarac,  552,  1167  A:  the  serpent  below  reported  to  be  ancient.  11.  Rome,  in  the  market, 
noted  by  me  1892  : head  foreign. 


Fig.  79.— Statue  restored  as  Asklepios  (Hermitage). 


190 


MYRON 


rare  towards  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  though  in  the  period  of  the  copyists 
representations  of  him  were  in  great  demand.  Considering  that  at  this  late  period 
there  was  a rage  for  old  types,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  copyists,  for  want  of  old 
originals  of  Asklepios,  should  sometimes  have  seized  upon  originals  pourtraying  Zeus, 
and  by  a change  of  attributes  have  turned  them  into  statues  of  Asklepios.  The 
restful  conception  that  marks  the  older  type  of  Zeus  exactly  suited  the  mild  character 
of  Asklepios.  Anyhow,  the  erect,  kingly  pose  of  our  statue  ; its  gesture,  better  suited 
to  grasp  the  royal  sceptre  than  to  hold  the  healing  staff ; its  analogies  to  other 
statues  of  the  god  ; and,  finally,  the  type  of  head,  to  which  we  shall  have  to  return, 
make  it  clear,  in  my  opinion,  that  a statue  of  Zeus  was  the  original  from  which  the 
Hermitage  statue  was  derived. 

The  number  of  replicas  found  in  Rome  1 shows  not  only  that  the  original  was 
famous,  but  that  it  was  probably  to  be  seen  in  Rome  ; our  analysis  of  the  statue 
has  led  us  to  Myron  as  the  artist ; and  a Zeus  by  Myron  actually  was  in  Rome 
in  an  aedicula , erected  by  Augustus  on  the  Capitol.2 

Another  point  of  special  interest  about  our  statue,  and  one  which  further 
confirms  its  interpretation  as  Zeus,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  head  exhibits  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  hair  and  the  modulation  of  the  brow  all  the  fundamental 
characteristics  which  were  to  develop  into  the  famous  type  of  Zeus  known  from 
the  Otricoli  bust.  An  historical  study  of  the  system  of  forms  of  this  celebrated  head 
shows  it  to  belong  not  to  the  circle  of  Lysippos,  as  was  formerly  maintained,  but 
to  that  of  Praxiteles.3  Thus,  even  as  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  marks  the  culminating 
point  of  a line  of  development  that  begins  with  the  heads  of  Myron’s  athletes,4 
so  it  would  seem  that  the  bust  from  Otricoli  is  the  Praxitelean  development  of  a 
type  of  Zeus  created  in  the  clays  of  Myron. 


XI.  The  ‘ Casscl  Apollo .’ — Argive  Influences  traceable  in  Myron. 

The  three  statues  which  we  have  considered  so  far  and  have  referred  to  Myron 
have  the  same  position  and  attitude.  In  all  probability  the  statue  from  which  the 
Iviccardi  bust  {supra,  Fig.  66)  is  copied  formed  a fourth  in  the  series.  The  common 
characteristics  of  this  attitude  are  found  in  the  main  in  all  statues  in  repose  of  the 
first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  Still,  among  these  works,  all  of  which  have  the 
free  leg  placed  slightly  forwards,  and  the  head  turned  a little  to  one  side,  there  are 
several  sharply  defined  groups.5  Those  ascribed  to  Myron  are  most  closely  allied 
as  regards  the  pose  to  the  so-called  Apollo  on  the  Omphalos,  which  I refer  to 

1 To  the  twelve  statues  and  statuettes  mentioned  above,  of  which  only  the  Petersburg  example  preserves  the 
original  head,  must  be  added  the  Berlin  head  (our  Fig.  78)  and  two  replicas  of  the  same  : (a)  in  the  Palazzo 
Riccardi : Diitschke,  Zerstr.  Bildw.  in  Flor.  161  : the  head  is  set  up  as  a pendant  to  the  Riccardi  head  ; 
( b ) a freer  copy  in  the  Palazzo  Colonna,  No.  12. 

2 Strabo,  14,  p.  637  ; the  statue  belonged  originally  to  a group  with  Athena  and  Herakles  in  Samos. 

Collignon  {Hist,  de  la  Sculpt.  Gr.  i.  p.  465)  thinks  that  the  Zeus  of  Myron  may  be  recognized  on  the  coins  of 
Augustus  which  were  struck  after  the  dedication  of  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Tonans  (Cohen,  Med.  Imper.  2nd  ed.  i. 
88  ; cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  d.  Myth.  ii.  748).  This  is  a mistake.  The  valaKos  that  Strabo  mentions  is  certainly  not 
the  famous  temple  of  Jupiter  Tonans  ; further,  the  statue  of  Jupiter  Tonans  on  the  Capitol  was  by  Leochares 
according  to  Pliny  (xxxiv.  79) ; the  motive  of  the  statue  as  shown  on  coins  confirms  this  statement,  and  excludes 
Myron,  since  it  is  not  till  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  that  statues  are  represented  resting  their  arm  high 
against  the  sceptre.  3 Cf.  infra  under  Praxiteles. 

4 Cf.  Kekule,  Kopf  des  Praxit.  Hermes.  5 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  1890,  p.  149  sqq. 


MYRONIAN  APOLLO 


191 

Kalamis  (cf.  sjtpra,  p.  81  seq.)  Together  they  stand  in  vivid  contrast  to  the  type 
which  I ascribe  to  the  school  of  the  Argive  Hagelaidas,  where  the  advanced  free 
foot  is  more  markedly  unincumbered,  the  shoulder  droops  a little,  and  the  head 
is  inclined.  With  Myron  as  with  Kalamis  the  upper  part  of  the  body  and  the  head 
are  more  upright,  the  whole  presentment  expressing  power  and  energy.  As  regards 
the  rendering  of  the  bodily  form,  however,  we  have  already  seen  that  Myron  differs 
essentially  from  Kalamis,  inasmuch  as  he — to  compare  especially  breast  and 
abdomen — exhibits  a flatter,  sparer  style,  which  seems  to  betray  his  connexion  with 
the  Argive  school. 

In  the  Apollo— generally  known  as  the  ‘Apollo  of  Cassel,’  from  its  principal 
replica1 — we  possess  a statue  which  is  unmistakably  connected  with  the  Myronian 
works  we  have  just  been  studying,  and  which  at  the  same  time  shows  us  the  artist  under 
the  influence  of  the  Argive  type  as  regards  the  position  of  the  body.2  The  figure 
rests  on  the  left  leg  ; the  left  forearm  is  stretched  forward  in  a horizontal  position 
to  hold  an  attribute  (in  this  case  a bow),  the  right  hangs  idly  down,  and  perhaps 
held  some  slight  object,  such  as  a twig.  The  head  is  inclined  to  the  left.  The  flat 
smooth  forms  also  recall  the  Argive  tendency.  On  the  other  hand,  the  statue  differs 
from  the  Argive  type  in  certain  deep-seated  differences,  and  its  close  relation  to 
the  statues  ascribed  to  Myron  is  no  less  evident.  The  head  is  not  inclined  forward  ; 
one  shoulder  does  not  droop  ; the  god  looks  straight  before  him,  with  a look  not 
of  concentrated  repose  but  of  a strong  and  active  will.  The  free  foot  is  placed  more 
to  the  front,  and  is  more  turned  out  than  is  customary  in  those  Argive  statues  : 
this  helps  to  give  energy  to  the  pose.  The  same  was  the  case  in  the  Zeus  and  the 
‘ Mercury  ’ of  Myron.3  The  treatment  of  the  bodily  forms  also  comes  nearest  to 
that  of  the  Myronian  statues.  We  have  noted  their  connexion  with  the  Argive 
works  ; it  remains  to  point  out  the  differences.  Above  all,  the  contrast,  so 
characteristic  of  Hagelaidas,  between  the  narrow  hips  and  the  over-broad  angular 
shoulders  can  no  longer  be  detected  ; it  is  only  by  comparison  with  the  Myronian 
Zeus  and  ‘Neptune’  that  the  Apollo  still  appears  somewhat  hard.  Further,  just 
as  the  turn  and  pose  of  the  head  correspond  to  that  of  the  Myronian  statues  of  gods, 
so  also  does  the  relation  of  the  head  to  the  rest  of  the  body ; in  this  respect  it 
seems  also  to  agree  with  the  Diskobolos  ; the  head  is  somewhat  larger  than  is  usual 
in  the  other  works  from  the  circle  of  Hagelaidas.4  Further,  the  muscles  are  more 

1 Known  to  me  are  : Entire  statues — 1.  In  Cassel,  Overbeck,  Apollon , PI.  20,  24  ; p.  166,  1 ; 108,  1 ; 

where  also  see  the  older  literature.  The  work  is  hard,  but  careful  in  all  parts  : it  gives  the  impression  of  great 
exactness.  Through  a mistake  in  putting  the  fragments  of  the  statue  together  a wrong  turn  has  been  given 
to  the  upper  part  of  the  body  ; the  mistake  lies  in  the  middle  of  the  left  thigh  and  under  the  right  knee  ; 
it  can  be  checked  by  the  aid  of  the  Paris  statue.  2.  Louvre,  Overbeck,  loc.  cil.  2 = our  Figs.  So,  81. 
3.  Torso,  Athens,  Central  Museum.  Finally  the  following  heads  : 4.  In  Athens,  found  to  the  east  of  the 

Olympeion,  Sybel,  747  ; Overbeck,  loc.  cit.  108,  3.  Careless  and  feeble  work  of  Roman  time,  much  damaged. 
5.  From  Greece,  now  in  the  Louvre,  No.  2032  (phot.  Giraudon)  ; very  probably  identical  with  that  noted  by 
Benndorf,  Ann.  1880,  198,  5,  at  a dealer’s  in  Athens.  Poor  Roman  work.  6.  From  the  Esquiline,  Rome, 
Barracco  Coll.  : Overbeck,  p.  108,  4 (see  our  Fig.  80).  7.  From  Rome,  formerly  in  Barracco  Coll,  now  belonging 

to  Brunn  in  Munich.  8.  In  Naples,  set  on  the  term  of  the  so-called  Polyhymnia.  Mrs.  Naz.  Inv.  No.  6393. 
I have  not  seen  the  following  heads  noted  by  others  as  copies  : Overbeck,  p.  108,  6,  belonging  to  Herr  v. 
Keudell ; Schreiber,  Villa  Ludovisi , 315  ; Diitschke,  Zerstr.  Bildw.  in  Florenz,  520  : acc.  to  Benndorf,  Annali, 
1880,  199,  probably  belongs  to  the  series  ; Arch.  Anzeiger,  1891,  p.  181,  3,  in  Vienna,  University  Collection. 

2 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  135  seq.  ; supra,  p.  49. 

3 The  middle  part  of  the  feet  of  the  Cassel  statue  as  well  as  a piece  of  the  plinth  is  old  ; the  feet  are  close 

together.  The  restoration  of  the  legs  in  the  Paris  statue  should  be  corrected  accordingly. 

4 The  Argive  bronze,  published  by  me  in  the  5°th  Winckelmannsprogr.,  shows  that  at  a later  date,  circa 

B. c.  460,  the  old  Argive  canon  was  improved  in  Argos  also:  the  head  was  made  larger,  and  the  hips 

broader. 


Fig.  8o. — Apollo  of  the  ‘ Cassei  type’  (Louvre). 


MYRONIAN  APOLLO 


193 


energetic  than  in  this  latter  school  ; the  prominence  of  the  collar-bone  just  under  the 
neck  dimple  recurs  on  our  Myronian  statues  and  in  the  Diskobolos,  though  it  is 
not  usual  in  the  flat  quiet  treatment  of  the  early  Argive  statues.1 

The  head  seems  to  afford  definite  proof  of  the  Myronian  authorship.  We 
recognize  in  it  the  characteristic  lower  part  of  the  face  with  the  slightly  open  mouth 
and  the  form  of  the  mouth  2 itself,  not  to  speak  of  the  chin,  which  accords  very  closely 
with  that  of  the  Riccardi  bust.  Then  the  modelling  of  the  forehead  and  the  well- 
defined  arch  of  the  eyebrows  are  very  like  the  Diskobolos,  while  the  peculiar  parting 


Fig.  81.— Head  of  Apollo. 


of  the  locks  in  the  middle  of  the  forehead  is  the  same  as  in  the  ‘ Neptune  ’ after 
Myron.  Further,  the  heavy  tresses  curling  at  the  ends  in  the  Apollo  are  identical 
with  those  of  the  ‘ Peisistratos  ’ (Fig.  73),  while  the  plastic  treatment  of  the  beard 
must  be  compared  to  that  of  the  Marsyas. 

1 It  is  further  characteristic  that  the  pubes  is  fully  and  powerfully  formed,  as  in  the  Diskobolos  and  the 
Myronian  ‘ Mercury  ’ ; in  the  circle  of  Hagelaidas  it  was  invariably  left  out  in  the  case  of  youthful  beardless 
figures.  The  pubes  of  the  Apollo  is  interesting  in  itself : it  consists  of  two  parts — an  upper  row  of  smooth, 
scarcely  turned  up,  and  very  regularly  disposed  hair,  and  a lower  row  immediately  about  the  membrum , 
consisting  of  the  same  full  plastic  locks  that  appear  on  the  brow.  I know  of  no  exact  parallel  to  this  method 
of  representing  the  pubes,  though  the  nearest  analogy  occurs  on  Myronian  statues  : the  upper  smooth  row  of  hair 
is  found  on  the  best  copies  of  the  Diskobolos,  and  the  lower  curled  part  of  the  pubes  resembles  that  of  the 
Marsyas. 

2 Next  to  the  Cassel  head  the  mouth  should  be  studied  in  the  Louvre  head  [supra,  p.  191,  note  1,  No.  2), 
which  is  very  careful  in  this  point  : the  lips  are  defined  here  too  by  incised  lines  in  imitation  of  bronze  technique. 

C C 


194 


MYRON 


The  points  in  the  Apollo  that  deviate  from  the  usual  Myronian  head  are  only 
such  as  may  well  have  been  chosen  to  suit  the  character  of  the  god  (Fig.  8 1).  The  most 
striking  of  these  is  the  great  length  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  which  is  not  other- 
wise found  in  Myron,  though  it  is  found  in  Kritios  and  Nesiotes  1 (with  whose  work, 
however,  the  Apollo  has  in  other  respects  absolutely  nothing  in  common).  Now,  as 
the  length  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face  together  with  the  slightly  open  mouth,  in 
which  the  teeth  arc  visible,  contributes  materially  to  produce  the  impression  of  an 
exalted  and  unapproachable  divinity,  I incline  to  think  that  the  artist  chose  it  solely 
on  that  account.  Indeed,  the  head  betrays  in  every  point  a studied  adaptation  of  the 
facial  forms  to  the  production  of  a definite  expression.  The  shape  of  the  brow  is 
especially  notable  in  this  connexion  : it  is  high  in  the  middle,  and  broadens  out  very 
considerably  at  the  base  towards  the  temples,  where  it  attains  its  greatest  width 
in  the  strongly  projecting  eyebrows  above  the  outer  corners  of  the  eyes.  This 
formation  is  continued  by  the  wide  cheek-bones  and  the  broad  round  skull,  which 
Myron,  as  we  have  ahead)'  seen,  was  wont  to  make  characteristic,  and  not  after  a 
conventional  pattern.  The  eye  is  correspondingly  large,  with  a long  narrow  slit.  As 
the  brow  is  given  a overhanging  shape,  the  slant  of  the  eyeball  from  top  to  bottom  is 
very  considerable.  The  art  of  later  days  kept  to  the  leading  traits  of  this  creation  : 
the  broad  scheme  of  the  upper  part  of  the  face  becomes  henceforth  characteristic  of 
Apollo,  just  as  we  noted  that  the  later  ideal  of  Zeus  was  based  upon  the  type 
created  by  Myron. 

The  treatment  of  the  hair  is  also  turned  to  account  to  express  divine  majesty  and 
power.  We  have  already  noticed  the  ample  crown  of  hair  in  the  Neptune  and  the 
Zeus  of  Myron.  In  the  Apollo  it  has  a somewhat  stiffer  character,  owing  to  the  work 
being  on  the  whole  somewhat  earlier.  This  rich  crown,  consisting  of  individual  locks 
treated  in  a very  natural  manner,  was  something  new,  and  our  Apollo  seems  to  afford 
the  earliest  example  of  it.  It  took  the  place  of  the  sober  roll  of  hair  worn  by  the 
earlier  Apollo  of  the  school  of  Ilagelaidas,  which  has  been  ascribed  to  Ilegias  (p.  52). 
Doubtless  this  Argive  Apollo  was  known  to  our  artist,  for  he  reproduces  the  main 
features  of  the  hair  : in  the  Myronian  statue,  as  in  its  predecessor,  we  get  the  two 
twisted  locks  at  the  side  falling  to  the  upper  edge  of  the  breast,  together  with  the 
trim  coiffure  at  the  back  and  the  part  above  the  forehead.  But  the  favourite  2 roll  of 
hair  of  the  Peloponnesian  artists,  with  its  stiff,  smooth  regularity,  is  here  dispensed 
with,  and  replaced  in  front  by  a wealth  of  natural  curls,  at  the  back  by  the  plait  that 
was  in  vogue  in  the  Attico- Ionian  school.3 

One  may  indeed  pretty  confidently  suppose  that  an  Apollo  by  Myron  exists 
among  the  marble  copies  that  are  preserved  to  us  of  older  originals.  For  the 
inscription  A 7 tuWgov  M vpcovos  on  a headless  term  in  Rome4  shows  us  that  an 
Apollo  of  Myron  was  known  in  Roman  times,  and  that  its  head  was  highly  enough 
valued  to  be  copied  alone  apart  from  the  body.  Pliny  (xxxiv.  58)  also  mentions  an 
Apollo  by  Myron,  which  remained  for  a long  time  at  Rome,  until  Augustus  restored 
it  to  the  Ephesians.  Moreover,  as  Verrcs  had  despoiled  Agrigentum  of  another 
Apollo  of  Myron,  there  was  evidently  more  than  one  statue  of  this  god  by  this 
artist,  and  those  that  are  known  to  us  in  copies  need  not  necessarily  be  identical 
with  either  of  the  two  which  happen  to  be  mentioned  in  literary  tradition. 

The  provenance  of  the  copies  affords  no  clue  whatever  to  the  place  where  the 


1 Cf.  the  Harmodios  and  the  Boy  from  the  Akropolis. 

2 Cf.  50th  BerL  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  128  seq. 

3 Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  1883,  246  seq.  (Schreiber). 


4 Kaibel,  Iitscr.  Gr.  Ttal.  p.  698,  1256  a. 


Fig.  82.— Apollo  head  of  1 Cassel  type  ’ in  Barracco  Collection  (Rome). 


196 


MYRON 


original  stood.  These  copies  all  belong  to  Roman  times,  and  as  usual  with  copies 
doubtless  served  to  decorate  private  houses,  baths,  and  the  like.  The  same  holds 
good  for  the  head  and  torso  from  Athens  ; both  came  in  all  probability  from  the 
Roman  ruins  of  the  city  of  Hadrian  around  the  Olympieion  ;4  and  we  should  not  be 
justified  in  concluding  from  this  circumstance  that  the  original  was  in  Athens.1 2 
All  that  we  can  say  positively  about  this  Apollo,  which  is  avowedly  one  of  the 
grandest  ideal  creations  of  Greek  art,  is  that  it  must  have  been  highly  prized  in 
antiquity,  seeing  the  many  copies  of  it  which  have  survived. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  becomes  possible  to  throw  light  on  Pliny’s  statement 
(xxxiv.  57)  that  Myron  was  a pupil  of  Ilagelaidas,  now  that  we  have  clearly  detected 
in  the  Apollo  the  influence  of  the  old  Argive  canon.  We  have  seen  that  the  artist  of 
the  Apollo  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  epoch-making  creations  of  the  old 
Argive  school,  even  though  his  work  is  at  the  same  time  widely  different  from  them  ; 
in  addition  to  this,  we  have  detected  a certain  Peloponnesian  influence  in  Myron’s 
whole  treatment  of  the  bodily  forms,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  Marsyas,  even  in  his 
treatment  of  the  head.  It  is,  however,  no  longer  possible  to  ascertain  whether  Myron 
was  really  a pupil  of  Ilagelaidas  or  whether  the  tradition  arose,  as  in  the  case  of 
Pheidias  (cf.  p.  54),  owing  to  some  ancient  art  critic’s  observing  in  Myron  traces  of 
the  master’s  influence.  The  latter  seems  to  me  the  more  probable.  The  tradition, 
for  which  Pliny  is  responsible,  is  derived  from  the  same  good  old  source  (probably 
Xcnokrates)  as  that  which  says  that  Polykleitos  also  was  a pupil  of  Hagclaidas3 — 
an  impossible  relationship  in  its  literal  sense,  since  Polykleitos,  even  dating  him  as 
far  back  as  possible  (cf.  supra,  p.  130),  is  still  too  widely  separated  from  Hagelaidas 
to  admit  of  it : his  master  must  have  belonged  to  the  intermediate  generation — a 
generation  that  was  however  soon  forgotten,  inasmuch  as  it  achieved  no  renown  ; 
in  time  therefore  the  head  of  the  later  school  was  made  to  follow  close  on  the 
famous  head  of  the  old.  All  the  same,  it  is  true  that  the  canon  of  Polykleitos  was 
developed  from  the  old  canon  of  Hagelaidas,  as  we  too  may  still  recognize,4  but  the 
actual  teacher  of  Polykleitos  must  have  been  some  artist  like  that  Argeiadas  (Lowy, 
/.  G.  B.  30)  who  was  proud  to  be  known  in  Olympia  as  the  pupil  of  Hagelaidas.  If 
the  story  of  the  pupilship  of  Polykleitos  is  not  literally  true,  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
similar  story  about  Myron  should  be  any  the  more  true,  though  in  his  case  chrono- 
logical considerations  do  not  stand  in  the  way.  The  traditions  must  have  had  their 
source  in  those  works  which  reveal  a point  of  contact  between  Myron  and 
Hagelaidas;  who  it  was  that  transmitted  this  influence  remains  unknown  to  later 
ages.  It  is  however  quite  certain  from  monuments  such  as  the  Apollo  that  the  story 
is  no  mere  capricious  invention. 

The  Apollo  enables  us  to  look  not  only  backwards  but  forwards.  It  again  proves 
how  entirely  Myron  was  the  forerunner  of  Kresilas.  In  order  to  be  once  more 
convinced  of  this  it  suffices  to  consider  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  hair  of  the  Apollo 

1 The  statue  of  a boy,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1893,  PL  4,  in  which  Mayer  {ibid.)  sees  a copy  of  the  Splanclinoptes 
of  Styppax,  was  also  found  in  the  same  region. 

2 Nor  do  the  coins  of  Athens  afford  any  certain  clue.  The  type  of  Apollo  on  coins — Inrhoof- Gardner, 
Num.  Comm.  PI.  CC.,  XV.,  XVII.  ; Overbeck,  Apollo,  Miinztaf.  iv.  33 — shows  close  agreement  in  the  general 
scheme  with  our  type  (left  leg  bearing  weight,  left  forearm  extended  with  bow,  right  hanging) ; another 
Athenian  coin  (Imhoof,  etc.,  too.  cit.  PI.  CC.,  XVI.  ; Overbeclc,  iv.  29)  shows  much  the  same  Apollo,  only  seen 
more  from  the  front,  and  for  this  reason  with  the  supporting  leg  reversed.  I formerly  tried  to  identify  this  with 
the  Omphalos  Apollo  (Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  456)  ; it  could  also  be  referred  to  our  Cassel  type  (cf.  also 
Winter  in  the  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1887,  235,  note).  But  this  too  is  quite  uncertain,  and  there  is  yet  another 
possibility  open  to  us,  which  I shall  discuss  in  connexion  with  Euphranor  {infra,  p.  356). 

3 Plin.  55,  9.  Cf.  Robert,  Arch.  Marcher,  p.  92.  i Cf.  50th  Bert.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  149. 


THE  PERSEUS 


197 


(compare  the  form  of  the  little  curls  with  those  of  the  Perikles),  the  shape  of  the  eyes 
(in  the  better  copies,  such  as  the  one  in  Cassel),  and  of  the  mouth  with  the  teeth, 
which  reminds  us  at  once  of  the  Medusa. 

In  conclusion,  the  Apollo  invites  comparison  with  the  other  statues  of  Apollo  of 
the  same  period — i.e.  of  the  years  ranging  from  about  475  to  460.  First  and  in  notable 
contrast  come  the  two  statues,  in  which  we  recognized  the  style  of  Kritios  (p.  54  seq.)  and 
of  Ilcgias  respectively  (p.  52  seq .)  The  one  referred  to  Hegias  is  under  the  immediate 
influence  of  Hagelaidas : it  is  a beautiful  work,  though  somewhat  heavy  and  dull  in 
tone  ; the  other  is  quite  independent  of  that  master,  and  in  many  respects — especially 
in  the  pose — less  perfect,  though  fresher  in  conception.  Somewhat  later  follows  the 
so-called  Omphalos  Apollo,  attributed  to  Kalamis,1  also  independent  of  Argos  ; the 
body  is  a magnificent  creation,  teeming  with  force,  while  the  head  scarcely  rises  as  yet 
above  a human  type  ; it  even  relinquishes  the  attempt  made  in  the  two  preceding  statues 
to  mark  the  god  at  any  rate  by  the  headdress.  It  is  very  different  with  the  two  approx- 
imately contemporary  works  that  follow — an  earlier  work  of  Pheidias  (supra,  p.  49),  still 
somewhat  constrained  and  recalling  his  master  Hegias,  and  the  work  executed  by  Myron 
at  the  highest  point  of  his  development.  Both  try  to  go  deeper  than  their  predecessors, 
both  try  to  mark  more  clearly  the  character  of  the  god  and  to  raise  it  above  the  human 
type,  yet  both  works  are  absolutely  different.  Myron’s  assuredly  deserves  the  prize. 
The  genius  of  Pheidias  is  still  under  the  constraint  of  youth,  and  his  attempt  to  express 
the  spiritual  element  in  the  god  proceeds  rather  on  the  lines  of  a gentle  beauty,  while 
Myron  creates  with  sure  hand  true  Apolline  grandeur  and  majesty. 

In  close  proximity  to  these  two  works  we  must  note  finally  another  Apollo  that 
proceeds  from  some  second-rate  artist2  who  copied  the  body  of  Myron’s  statue,  and 
for  the  head  modelled  himself  superficially  at  least  upon  Pheidias,  though  he  either 
could  not  or  would  not  adopt  the  special  forms  that  lend  the  face  its  expression.  The 
form  he  employs  seems  to  indicate  that  this  otherwise  insignificant  artist  belonged  to 
the  school  of  Kalamis. 


XII.  The  Perseus. 

A head  of  Perseus,  which  is  preserved  in  two  replicas,  will  be  found  to  afford 
the  final  external  proof  that  the  original  of  the  Cassel  Apollo  and  its  replicas  was 
a work  by  Myron.  The  general  characteristics  of  the  Perseus  show  that  its  original 
must  have  been  an  older  work  of  the  fifth  century.  Now  we  are  acquainted  through 
literature  with  one  famous  statue  of  Perseus  belonging  to  this  period,  and  with  one 
alone,3  that  of  Myron.  It  stood  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens,  and  is  mentioned  by 
Pausanias  (i.  23,  7),  and  also  by  Pliny  (xxxiv.  5 7)  in  his  short  list  of  the  most 
famous  works  of  Myron.  Since  this  statue  was  undoubtedly  copied,  there  is  every 
probability  that,  if  we  can  point  among  extant  copies  to  a Perseus  of  the  fifth  century, 
it  will  be  to  the  statue  of  Myron. 

The  two  extant  copies  are  a head  in  the  British  Museum  (Plate  IX.),  which  A.  S. 

1 Cf.  supra,  p.  81  seq.  ; the  attributes  preserved  in  the  replicas  establish  this  statue  as  undoubtedly  an  Apollo. 

2 The  statue  of  the  Capitol  mentioned  above,  p.  49;  Overbeck,  Apollon,  p.  275,  4;  112,  1 ; Allas, 
PL  20,  22. 

3 It  is  true  that  an  anonymous  writer— probably  Favorinus — in  a passage  quoted  in  the  Corinthiaca  of  Dion 
Chrys.  (p.  106,  R.  ii. ) speaks  also  of  a Perseus  by  Pythagoras;  but  it  seems  more  than  probable  that  this 
rhetorician  of  the  later  Empire  substituted  for  the  name  of  Myron  that  of  his  rival  Pythagoras,  who  is  so  often 
named  in  conjunction  with  him.  Cf.  W.  Klein,  Arch.  Epigr.  Mitth.  ans  Oesterreich,  1883,  p.  68.  L.  Urlichs 
(Ueber  Griech.  Kunstschriftsteller,  p.  48)  attributes  to  the  same  rhetorician  yet  another  confusion,  between 
Alkamenes  and  Euphranor. 


198 


MYRON 


Murray  identified  and  published  as  a Perseus,1  and  its  recently  discovered  replica  in 
Rome  (Pig.  83).-  The  interpretation  as  Perseus  may  be  accepted  as  certain,  since 
Hermes,  who  alone  could  also  come  into  question,  might  perhaps  have  worn  a petasos 
or  a winged  pilos,  but  not  the  distinctive  cap  covered  with  scales  or  little  feathers,  and 
doubtless  intended  for  the  wonderful  tarn  cap  of  Hades.3  The  head  of  Perseus  on  an 
electrum  coin  of  Cyzicus  of  the  early  fifth  century 1 also  wears  a similar  close-fitting  round 
cap,  passing  at  the  back  into  great  wings.  On  the  coin  the  hair,  though  treated  more 
severely,  escapes  in  short  curls  from  under  the  close  edge  of  the  cap,  just  as  in  the 
marble  heads.  One  might  say  that  the  artist  of  the  head  of  the  statue  had  modelled 
himself  on  a type  of  beardless  Perseus  wearing  a round  winged  cap,  already  current  in 
the  art  of  Ionia. 


Fig.  83. — Head  of  Perseus  (Rome). 


The  original  can  be  recovered  from  a study  ot  the  two  copies  of  the  head.  The 
London  replica  is  rather  harder,  though  at  the  same  time  it  is  in  some  points  more 
accurate  ; the  Roman  one  is  a hasty  yet  intelligent  piece  of  work.  The  London 
copy  gives  the  cap  more  accurately,  but  the  hair,  which  is  much  injured,  seems  less  good  ; 
the  Roman  head  represents  the  forms  of  the  face  with  more  delicacy  and  roundness, 
and  the  lips  arc  closed,  while  in  the  other  they  are  slightly  open  ; the  last  is  likely 
to  be  more  correct. 

The  connexion  between  the  Perseus  and  the  Cassel  Apollo  is  striking  and  quite 

1 J.  H.  S.  1881,  PI.  IX.  p.  55. 

2 Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch.  Comm,  di  Roma,  xviii.  (1890),  Tav.  13,  with  Klein’s  text.  [An  interesting  view 
of  the  Brit.  Mus.  Perseus,  both  facing  and  profile,  is  given  by  Kalkmann,  Proport,  des  Gesichts,  p.  77. — E.  S.] 

3 On  the  top  of  both  the  Roman  and  Brit.  Mus.  heads  some  further  object,  not  of  marble,  was  attached  ; ct. 
Murray  and  Klein  (loc.  cit.)  Unfortunately  the  objects  visible  on  the  cap  of  the  kneeling  Perseus  on  a Cyzicene 
coin  of  the  free  style  ( Num . Chron.  1887,  PI.  III.  26,  p.  89),  which  comes  next  in  point  of  time,  are  not  clear. 

4 Num.  Chron.  1887,  PI.  III.  24,  25  (p.  88). 


THE  PERSEUS 


199 


undeniable.  Since  in  the  case  of  the  Perseus  tradition  is  in  favour  of  Myron,1  we 
gain  at  the  same  time  a piece  of  external  support  for  referring  the  Apollo  to  this 
master.  This  connexion  is  all  the  more  weighty  and  convincing  in  view  of  the  differ- 
ence of  the  characters  represented — in  the  one  case  a calm  divinity,  in  the  other  a strong 
hero.  The  two  works  cannot  have  been  far  apart  from  each  other  in  point  of  time. 
There  is  a special  affinity  between  them  in  the  treatment  of  the  arch  of  the  eyebrows, 
with  their  powerful  development  towards  the  sides,  and  in  that  of  the  eyes  themselves  ; 
the  forehead  presses  heavily  above  the  eyes,  the  upper  lid  comes  prominently  in  front 
of  the  lower,  and  the  eyeball  slants  back. 

The  longer  side  locks  of  the  Perseus  have  the  same  wavy  form  with  curled  ends 
noticed  in  the  Apollo.  The  shorter  locks  over  the  forehead  and  in  the  neck  present 
the  unsymmetrical  tangle  so  often  noted  as  genuinely  Myronian,  except  that  they 
seem  handled  with  greater  freedom  than  in  those  older  heads  after  Myron  that  have 
already  been  dealt  with.  The  receding  lower  part  of  the  face,  with  the  full,  slightly 
opened  mouth  and  the  strongly  curved  lines  of  the  lips,  arc  all  equally  characteristic. 
The  points  of  difference  between  the  Perseus  and  the  head  of  Apollo  serve  simply  to 
express  character.  To  begin  with,  the  Perseus  lacks  that  unusual  length  of  the  lower 
part  of  the  face  ; in  the  Perseus  this  part  is  of  normal  Myronian  proportions,  inas- 
much as  its  length  is  the  same  as  the  distance  between  the  nose  and  the  arch  of  the 
brows.2  The  close  stylistic  resemblance  between  the  Perseus  and  the  Apollo  confirms 
the  view  that  the  length  in  the  lower  part  of  the  Apollo’s  face  was  merely  a means 
of  expressing  character.  The  forehead  is  especially  interesting.  The  modelling, 
which  in  the  head  of  Apollo  is  so  slight  that  most  of  the  copies  have  ignored  it, 
is  here  exceptionally  marked.3  From  either  side  of  the  root  of  the  nose  strongly 
marked  swellings  rise  upward  in  an  oblique  line  in  the  direction  of  the  points  where 
the  wings  are  attached,  reaching  their  highest  point  in  the  middle.  The  wings  in  this 
way  are,  as  it  were,  counterpoised  by  the  powerful  forehead,  and  the  expression  of 
extreme  energy  is  secured.  This  same  end  is  served  also  by  the  broad,  bony  chin, 
and  the  powerful  muscles  of  the  cheeks. 

A long  train  of  stylistic  development  undoubtedly  lies  between  the  Diskobolos 
with  his  impassive  countenance,  his  severe,  flat  hair,  and  the  marked  angle  of  brow  and 
nose,  and  the  Perseus  with  his  full,  flowing  locks,  straight  profile,  and  rounder,  freer 
modelling.  Yet  the  Diskobolos  contains  all  the  essential  forms  of  the  Perseus.  It 
must  also  be  remembered  that  the  close-cropped  hair  of  the  athletes  and  kindred 
figures  by  Myron  must  necessarily  appear  different  from  the  clustering  curls — not  long, 
it  is  true,  but  very  thick — that  Myron  gave  to  the  Perseus. 

This  Perseus  must  have  been  a work  full  of  grandeur  and  energy,  as  can  be  best 
realized  in  the  London  head,  in  which  the  whole  neck  and  a piece  of  the  breast  have  been 
preserved.  A.  S.  Murray,  with  fine  insight,  inferred  a powerful  original,  and  appositely 
said  of  this  head  that  the  sculptor  had  in  view  ‘a  first  impression  not  of  form  but  of 
action.’  The  total  effect  however  must  have  been  greatly  enhanced  by  the  wings,  now 

1 Klein  now  rejects  the  Myronian  authorship,  and  takes  refuge  in  the  theory  of  a Perseus  by  Pythagoras — a 
work  which  he  had  himself  proved  to  be  apocryphal  (supra,  p.  x 97,  n.  3) ; evidently  the  only  statue  he  thinks  of 
in  connexion  with  Myron  is  the  Diskobolos,  and  he  forgets  the  distance  that  separates  its  head  from  that  of  the 
Marsyas.  Not  only  does  tradition  afford  no  adequate  grounds  for  assigning  a Perseus  to  Pythagoras,  but  the 
statues  of  athletes  which  we  have  felt  obliged  to  assign  to  him  bear  a totally  different  character  to  the  heads 
under  discussion. 

2 Namely  72 — 73  mm.,  twice  the  length  of  the  lids  from  corner  to  corner,  36 — 37  mm.  Width  of  mouth 
55—56  mm. 

3 The  Perseus  head  on  the  coins  from  Amisos  of  the  time  of  Mithradates  Eupator  also  exhibits  a remarkably 
prominent  forehead  and  large  eyes  (Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Pont  its,  PI.  3,  12). 


200 


MYRON 


missing,  which  to  judge  from  the  attachments  must  have  been  of  considerable  size,  and 
have  given  a supernatural  expression  to  the  head. 

According  to  Pausanias,  Myron’s  Perseus  on  the  Akropolis  was  represented 
as  to  et?  Me&ovcrav  epyov  elpyaa/xevos.  The  deed  was  accomplished.  The  view 
formerly  entertained  was  that  he  was  represented  as  in  flight,  running,  with  the 
wallet  ft  tens)  slung  about  him.  The  head  teaches  us  now  that  he  was  standing 

quietly,  probably  holding  in  his  hand  the  severed  head  of  the  Medusa.  Even  without 
the  help  of  monumental  evidence  we  must  have  known  that  these  would  be  the 
main  lines  of  the  Myronian  conception  ; a Perseus  running  through  the  air  with  his 
winged  shoes  might  prove  an  attractive  subject  for  archaic  sculpture,  which  liked  to 
pourtray  Nike  in  a similar  manner,  but  could  never  have  been  so  for  Myron.  The 
running  Perseus  is  an  archaic  type,  and  moreover  one  not  easily  presented  without  the 
pursuing  Gorgons.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Perseus  at  rest  is  admirably  attested  as  a 
type  in  statuary  of  the  free  style.  For  instance,  a similar  statue  has  been  repro- 
duced on  a series  of  Imperial  coins  from  Argos,  which  explain  the  violent 
turn  of  the  head  to  the  left.1  Perseus  held  in  his  right  hand  the  newly  severed  head 
of  the  Medusa,  and  turned  his  head  in  horror  and  alarm  towards  the  other  side,  to 
protect  himself  from  the  petrifying  glance.  The  kneeling  Perseus  too,  on  a vase  of 
Cyzicus  of  the  free  style  of  the  fifth  century,2  and  on  an  Attic  vase  of  the  time  about 
450, 3 displays  this  same  motive,  though  with  a change  of  sides,  so  that  the  weapon  is 
in  the  right,  the  head  of  Medusa  in  the  left,  and  the  head  of  the  hero  consequently 
turned  towards  the  right. 

Since  the  turn  of  the  head  on  the  Argive  coin  coincides  with  the  head  after 
Myron,  we  may  imagine  the  whole  statue  restored  in  its  leading  features  on  the 
lines  of  this  coin.  The  hero  would  be  represented  standing  on  the  right  foot,  holding 
the  weapon  in  the  left  hand,  and  the  head  of  Medusa  in  his  right  hand  stretched  to  the 
side.  On  his  feet  were  naturally  the  winged  shoes. 

Possibly  the  statue  of  the  Argive  hero  was  not  erected  at  Athens  without 
reference  to  Argos  : it  might  almost  be  surmised  that  it  bore  some  allusion  to  the 
close  relations  between  Athens  and  Argos,  which  began  with  the  treaty  of  461  B.C.4 
In  any  case  the  statue  on  the  Akropolis  of  this  Argive  hero,  to  whom  the  goddess 
of  Athens  owed  her  Gorgon’s  head,5  and  in  whom  accordingly  the  tie  between 
Argos  and  Athens  found  mythical  expression,  would  have  been  a very  fitting  offering 
at  a time  when  politics  were  emphasizing  this  tic.  To  judge  by  the  style,  we  must 
imagine  the  Perseus  to  have  been  created  about  450  rather  than  460.  The  statue  in 
Argos,  which  is  attested  by  the  coins,  must  have  been  a replica  of  the  Myronian  statue, 
which  may  have  been  already  set  up  at  that  date,  or  perhaps  only  later. 

1 Imhoof-BIumer  and  P.  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  I.  xvii.,  xviii.  p.  35.  The  type  appears  unchanged, 
from  Hadrian  to  Septimius  Severus  ; a variant,  which  practically  only  reverses  the  sides,  appears  in  a single 
instance  at  Argos  on  a coin  of  Sept.  Severus  (ibid.  PI.  FF,  xxii.  p.  159)  and  at  Asine  on  a coin  of  Julia  Domna 
(ibid.  PI.  GG,  xxiii.  p.  163).  Similar  type  on  the  autonomous  bronze  coins  oflkonium.  Another  ruder  type,  also 
based  on  some  statue,  occurs  on  the  coins  of  the  Pontic  towns  of  Anrisos,  Amastris,  Sinope  (Brit.  Mus.  Catal. 
Pont  us,  PI.  3,  13  ; 19,  8 ; p.  99).  [The  type  appears  without  variation  from  Hadrian  to  Lucius  Verus,  and  also 
under  Valerian  (Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  Pelopon.  p.  153);  the  variation  on  another  coin  of  Septimius  Severus,  in  which  the 
head  of  Perseus  is  not  turned  away,  is  probably  due  to  the  caprice  of  the  copyist  (supra,  PI.  VI.  33).  I regret 
that,  owing  to  an  oversight  which  I only  noticed  after  PI.  VI.  had  been  photographed,  this  coin  was  reproduced 
instead  of  one  belonging  to  the  series  mentioned  by  Furtwangler. — E.  S.] 

2 Num.  Chron.  1887,  PI.  3,  26  : cf.  supra,  p.  198,  n.  3. 

3 Millin,  Vases  Peints,  ii.  3.  For  a second  vase  illustrative  in  this  connexion,  cf.  infra,  p.  201  seq. 

4 Concerning  the  significance  of  this  treaty  cf.  latterly  Robert,  Hermes,  1890,  412. 

5 In  Athens  quite  old  vases  already  attest  the  connexion  between  Athena  and  Perseus  as  the  slayer  of  the 
Medusa.  The  saying  in  Euripides,  Ion.  987,  which  has  found  no  expression  in  art,  can  never  have  been  popular 
in  Athens. 


THE  PERSEUS 


201 


The  motive  of  the  Perseus,  so  far  as  we  have  proved  it,  was  certainly  the  pattern 
for  the  Diomede  of  Kresilas  ; in  this  case  also  it  was  Myron  on  whom  Kresilas 
modelled  himself.  The  essential  character  of  the  effective  attitude  and  pose  of  the 
Diomede  had  already  been  invented  by  Myron  for  his  Perseus,  though  Kresilas  no 
doubt  treated  this  motive  with  still  greater  effect. 

What  can  have  been  the  appearance  of  the  head  of  the  Medusa  which  Perseus 
held  in  his  hand  ? This  was  no  gorgoneion,  no  mask,  but  in  all  probability  a solid 
head  worked  in  the  round  with  severed  neck,  as  it  is  represented  also  on  the  Argive 
and  Cyzicene  coins  of  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  century.1  Myron  was  accordingly 
free  from  the  severe  mask  type.  On  an  Attic  vase  of  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century2 
the  head  of  Medusa  in  the  hand  of  Perseus  is  represented  as  that  of  a beautiful  woman 
free  from  any  distortion.  This  led  us  to  conclude  ( supra , p.  158)  that  Medusa  must 
have  been  so  represented  at  Athens  in  the  greater  arts  even  previous  to  this  vase,  for 
the  vase-painters  never  invent  such  bold  novelties  for  themselves.  Since  the  vase- 
painting  which  represents  Perseus  with  the  severed  head  of  the  Medusa  in  his  hand 
agrees  with  Myron’s  statue,  and  since  the  motive  of  the  Perseus  on  the  vase  is  the 
same  as  that  which  we  have  recovered  for  the  statue  (i.e.  Perseus  standing  on  his 
right  foot  with  the  Medusa  head  in  his  extended  right  hand  and  turning  his  head 
in  the  opposite  direction),  we  can  have  no  doubt  that  the  vase-painter  was  condi- 
tioned, not  only  in  the  whole  figure  but  especially  also  in  the  Medusa,  by  Myron’s 
work  ; that  Myron’s  Medusa  represented,  not  a hideous  mask,  but  a beautiful  head 
worked  in  the  round. 

A.  S.  Murray,  in  commenting  on  the  remarkable  similarity  between  the  profile  of 
the  Perseus  and  a type  of  Medusa  that  appears  on  Roman  gems,  is  apparently  refer- 
ring to  that  type  best  preserved  in  the  gem  of  Sosos,3  and  less  well  in  the  cameo  of 
Diodotos,4  and  other  unsigned  replicas.  The  similarity  to  the  Perseus  is  striking 
throughout,  not  only  in  the  way  in  which  the  head  and  neck  are  rendered,  but  also  in 
the  whole  line  of  the  profile,  and  especially  in  the  forehead  and  eye.  Courage,  power, 
and  beauty  are  expressed  here  in  the  same  forms  as  in  the  Perseus.  It  is  the  severed 
lifeless  head  of  the  Medusa,  and  no  mask  ; it  has  undistorted,  beautiful  traits ; it  is 
just  such  a head  as  we  have  conjectured  for  Myron.  On  the  one  hand,  the  type  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  pathetic  representation  of  the  Medusa,  common  in  a later  age  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  individual,  powerful  creation,  which  cannot  be  referred  to 
the  gem-cutters,  but  must  be  traced  to  some  older  original.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me 
probable  on  all  grounds  that  the  original  was  the  Medusa  of  Myron,  held  in  the  hand 
of  the  Perseus  on  the  Akropolis.  And  so  again  Myron  appears  as  the  forerunner  of 
Kresilas  in  his  representation  of  the  lifeless  head  of  the  Medusa.  Myron  had  the 
courage  to  cut  himself  entirely  adrift  from  the  traditional  type  of  the  wild-eyed 
Gorgon.  Kresilas  also  has  bestowed  on  the  actual  gorgoneion  mask  a delicate  beauty 
of  feature. 

Our  inquiry  into  Myronian  statues  has  enabled  us  to  form  a very  different  view 
of  the  artist  from  that  generally  in  vogue.  He  is  no  longer  the  one-sided  sculptor  of 
athletes,  interested  only  in  violent  momentary  exertion,  and  caring  nothing  for  the 
spiritual  elements  of  his  figures.  Myron  has  created  gods  and  heroes  too,  which 

1 Num.  Chron.  1887,  PI.  3,  26. 

2 Ann.  d.  Inst.  1 88 1 , Tav.  F. — The  early  Lower  Italy  vase,  Millingen,  Vases  dc  Div.  Coll.  3,  which  belongs 
to  the  class  characterized  above,  p.  108  seq.,  must  be  mentioned  here,  since  it  undoubtedly  reproduces  an  Attic 
model  : it  again  shows  the  severed  head  and  neck  of  beautiful  type. 

3 Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1888,  PI.  8,  18  ; p.  214.  For  the  inscription  cf.  Arch.  Ans.  1891,  136. 

4 Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1889,  PI.  2,  6 ; p.  63  seq. 


D Dr 


202 


MYRON 


for  depth  of  conception  and  power  in  the  presentation  of  character  surpass  all 
contemporary  work.  The  ancients,  however,  were  so  lost  in  admiration  of  his  two 
figures  representing  athletes  in  violent  movement,  the  Discos-thrower  and  the  Ladas, 
and  of  the  cow  with  its  fidelity  to  nature,  that,  by  the  side  of  these,  other  aspects  of 
his  work  became  obscured. 

If  we  compare  Myron  with  Pheidias,  leaving  out  of  account  such  points  of 
difference  as  are  due  to  the  different  times  at  which  the  artists  lived,  we  find  that  the 
bent  of  Pheidias  is  towards  the  peaceful,  the  mild,  the  reflective,  the  beautiful  ; while 
Myron’s  is  to  energy,  power,  character,  and  truth.  In  Pheidias,  too,  we  find  a certain 
pictorial  instinct,  which  found  expression  in  the  decorative  modelling  which  he 
cultivated  to  so  great  an  extent.  Myron  has  nothing  of  this,  and,  further,  we  know 
him  only  as  a maker  of  bronze  statues  in  the  round.  In  this  respect  also  he  was 
followed  by  Kresilas,  who  likewise  worked  only  in  bronze,  and  held  quite  aloof  from 
decorative  modelling  in  other  materials. 


XIII.  Myronian  Female  Head. — The  Herakles  Altenips  and  Kindred  Works. — 

Asklepios  in  the  Uffisi. 

The  foregoing  sketch  of  Myron’s  artistic  personality  can  be  made  still  more 
definite  by  means  of  a few  other  monuments. 

Among  the  ten  figures  of  gods  of  which  mention  is  made  in  our  scanty  literary 
tradition  of  him,  no  less  than  three  represented  female  deities.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  know  what  a goddess  by  Myron  looked  like,  for  so  strong  an 
individuality  as  his  cannot  have  failed  to  impress  itself  upon  his  female  types  also. 
Now  the  head  of  the  Perseus  makes  it  possible  to  trace  back  to  Myron,  conjecturally 
at  least,  a beautiful  woman’s  head,  preserved  to  us  in  a copy,  placed  upon  a statue  that 
does  not  belong  to  it,  in  the  Giardino  Boboli  at  Florence  (Fig.  84). 1 The  peculiarly 
energetic  expression,  the  wide  mouth  and  chin,  and  the  slightly  drooping  corners  of 
the  mouth  present  a decided  affinity  to  the  Perseus,  to  whom  this  head  forms  the 
female  counterpart — a goddess  of  earnest  and  grave  character,  certainly  no  amiable 
beauty.  A diadem  encircles  her  head  ; her  hair  flows  simply  back  ; it  is  dressed  low 
over  the  forehead  and  is  parted,  though  it  consists  of  short  tangled  locks  tolerably 
freely  treated  and  characteristic  of  the  now  familiar  Myronian  manner.  The  same  is 
true,  too,  of  the  eyes  and  their  strongly  marked  lids.  The  head  must,  however,  be 
somewhat  older  than  the  Perseus,  and  belong  to  about  the  year  460.  In  particular 
the  part  towards  the  temples  between  the  eyebrows  and  the  upper  lids  is  somewhat 
harder  and  less  developed  than  in  the  copies  of  the  Perseus,  and  betrays  the  same 
stage  of  development  as  the  Riccardi  head. 

Next  come  a few  more  works  which  appear  to  follow  on  those  that  have  been 
already  described  as  after  Myron,  and  to  belong  to  the  second  period  of  the  artist’s 
work. 

In  the  court  of  the  Palazzo  Altemps  at  Rome  is  an  excellently  preserved 
colossal  seated  statue  of  Herakles.2  In  opposition  to  the  bearded  Myronian  Herakles 
belonging  to  the  artist’s  earlier  days,  the  Altemps  statue  appears  to  belong  to  his 

1 Diitschke,  No.  79  ; much  knocked  about  and  weather-beaten,  nose  abominably  restored.  Arndt- 
Bruckmann,  Einzelvcrk.  Nos.  101,  102  ; cast  in  the  Ecole  des  Beaux- Arts. 

2 Matz-Duhn,  123;  Clarac,  802  F,  1988  A;  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  p.  333,  fig.  2;  Kalkmann,  Gesichtsprop. 
p.  74,  n.  I.  II.  K.  also  suggests  Myron.  Even  the  left  arm  with  the  club  is  antique.  Only  a little  piece  at  the 
top  is  new.  The  upper  part  of  the  head  is  broken,  the  nose  new. 


Fig.  84. — Female  head  in  Giardino  Boboli  (Florence).  (By  permission  ct  Messrs.  Bruckmann,  Munich.) 


204 


MYRON 


later  years.  The  head  and  hair  are  closely  akin  to  those  of  the  Perseus.  The  body 
is  spare  ; the  pose  is  majestic,  with  a fine,  energetic  swing,  but  still  somewhat  hard 
and  angular.  The  hero  sits  upright,  the  left  arm  is  raised  and  supports  the  club, 
the  right  is  stretched  straight  out.  The  original  probably  stood  in  Rome,  for  it  was 
turned  to  account  in  the  time  of  Trajan  for  the  representation  of  a Herakles  seated 
amid  trophies  of  weapons  and  holding  an  akrostolion  in  his  hand.1  It  is  quite 
possible  that  this  original  was  the  very  Herakles  by  Myron  that  was  set  up  near  the 
Circus  Maximus  in  aede  Pompei  Magni  (Pliny,  xxxiv.  § 57). 

The  second  statue  which  we  must  name  here  is  the  so-called  Diomede  of  the 
Palazzo  Valentini  at  Rome,2  in  which  the  stooping  posture,  as  has  often  been 
remarked,  recalls  the  Diskobolos.3  Probably  it  represents  a hoplitodrome,  not  only 
on  account  of  the  likeness  in  the  attitude  to  the  Tubinger  bronze,4  but  also  on 
account  of  the  helmeted  head,  which  has  usually  been  taken  to  be  foreign  to  the 
statue,  but  which  seems  to  me  to  belong  to  it.  This  head,  which  is  much  restored 
and  wrongly  set,5 *  shows  kinship  to  the  Perseus. 

Among  heads  belonging  to  the  period  of  the  Perseus  may  be  named  an  athlete 
in  the  Capitol  : 0 the  youth  was  apparently  winding  round  his  head  a curious 
contrivance  of  thongs. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  statue  in  Munich  of  an  athlete  dropping  oil  into  his 
hands,7  the  beautiful  Florentine  athlete,8  and  the  types  akin  to  these,  must  be  kept 
quite  distinct  from  Myron,  for  they  have  no  immediate  connexion  with  any  of  his 
works.  They  must  belong  to  other  Attic  artists  of  the  generation  after  Myron — i.e. 
of  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.9 

Among  bearded  types  of  Myron’s  later  period  may  be  mentioned  a beautiful 
head  of  the  Museo  Chiaramonti  (Fig.  8 5 )A°  The  braid  of  hair  at  the  back,  reaching 
only  from  car  to  ear,  resembles  that  of  the  Apollo.  The  longish  hair,  coming  from  the 
crown  of  the  head,  is  brought  without  a break  towards  the  front,  where  it  rolls  up 
into  little  curls  and  mingles  with  the  short  ringlets  that  surround  the  forehead.  This 
rich  tangle  is  repeated  in  the  beard,  where  the  moustache  alone  flows  in  smooth 
lines,  as  in  the  older  heads  of  Myron.  The  eyelids  are  strong  and  marked  with 
a little  crease  in  the  manner  so  often  observed  in  the  Myronian  heads.  The  root 
of  the  nose  is  narrow.  The  mouth  is  slightly  open,  the  expression  is  exceedingly 
distinguished — yet  it  is  not  quietly  indifferent,  but  full  of  vivacity.  The  head  is 
rather  the  representation  of  a noble  hero  than  a portrait.  I can  imagine  the 

1 Cf.  Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  331  sqq.  The  Altemps  statue  represents  the  Greek  prototype,  and  is  not,  as 
P.  thinks,  a replica  of  what  he  calls  the  Trajan  type.  The  weapons  of  the  latter  are  wanting,  the  arms  are 
different,  and  head  and  body  alike  betray  a considerably  older  style.  The  replicas  of  the  statuette  of  the  Trajan 
type  display  the  usual  Hellenistic-Roman  character. 

2 Matz-Duhn,  1097  ; Clarac,  830,  2085.  A cast  of  the  torso  alone  in  the  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts  (No.  3836). 

3 Also  interpreted  as  a ‘ Diskobolos  ’ by  Matz-Duhn. 

4 Hauser  rightly  points  this  out,  Jalirb.  d.  Inst.  1887,  p.  101,  note  24,  but  on  account  of  the  tree-stem  he 
dissents  from  the  restoration  as  a hoplitodrome  ; this  stem  however  could  scarcely  constitute  an  impediment  to 
the  attachment  of  a bronze  shield. 

5 Restored : whole  neck,  back,  upper,  and  front  part  of  helmet,  nose,  and  a part  of  the  lips.  The  serpent  on 
the  helmet  is  ancient.  The  head  is  set  on  with  far  too  violent  a turn  ; still  it  was  slightly  inclined  to  the  left : 
the  relation  of  the  marble  of  the  head  to  that  of  the  body  could  only  be  decided  after  a thorough  cleaning. 

0 Helbig,  Fiihrer,  No.  415  : curiously  interpreted  as  ‘Juba,’  and  by  Helbig  as  ‘Barbarian  chief’  with 
1 negro  blood.’  The  so-called  Juba  head  at  Athens  has  not  the  faintest  likeness  to  this. 

7 Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  7.  Cf.  Kekule,  Kopf  des  Praxit.  Hermes , pp.  13,  18. 

8 Diitschke,  Uffizi,  72  ; Rom.  Mitth.  1892,  p.  81  seq.  0 Cf.  infra , under  Polykleitos. 

10  Museo  Chiaram.  No.  287  A.  The  terminal  bust  and  the  nose  are  modern.  Mentioned  as  a portrait  by 
Schreiber,  Ath.  Mitth.  1883,  p.  255. 


BEARDED  MYRONIAN  HEADS 


205 


Erechthcus  of  Myron,  so  much  admired  by  Pausanias  (ix.  30,  1),  and  which  no 
doubt  lurks  somewhere  among  our  copies,  conceived  somewhat  after  this  fashion.1 

Akin  is  a head  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  86), 2 evidently  by  an  artist  of  the 
second  rank,  who,  working  about  450,  comes  between  the  earlier  manner  of  Pheidias 
and  the  later  one  of  Myron. 


Fig.  85. — Head  in  Museo  Chiaramonti. 


Another  bearded  type  that  we  come  to  last  takes  us  back  again  to  the  earlier 
time  of  Myron.  The  beautiful  Asklepios  of  severe  style  in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence 
(Fig.  87) 3 was  always  in  my  opinion  one  of  the  most  attractive  statues  of  that 

1 As  the  Erechtheus  of  Myron  was  highly  esteemed  by  connoisseurs,  to  judge  from  the  words  of  Pausanias, 
it  seems  to  me  more  probable  that  it  was  a single  figure,  identical  with  the  statue  of  the  eponymous  hero  in  the 
Agora  (Pans.  i.  5,  2),  and  not  a member  of  the  fighting  group  on  the  Akropolis  (Paus.  i.  27,  4),  in  which  Eumolpos 
must  have  looked  very  like  his  opponent.  The  eponymous  hero,  however,  was  certainly  conceived  as  a quiet  and 
exalted  figure  : cf.  the  Erechtheus  on  the  vase  contemporary  with  Myron,  Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  39.  Statues  of 
eponymous  heroes  probably  came  into  existence  in  the  time  of  Kimon  ; cf.  Wachsmuth,  Stadt  Athen,  i.  509  ; 
Curtius,  Stadtgesch.  117. — For  the  question  of  Erecththeus  see  latterly  Kalkmann,  Pausanias , p.  192,  2 ; Sauer, 
A nfdnge  d.  Gruppe,  p.  60. 

2 Acquired  with  the  Castellani  collection  1873  ; place  of  discovery  unknown.  The  term  restored.  At  the 
back  of  the  head  a piece  that  had  been  separately  attached  is  missing.  Fully  life-size.  A head  known  to  me 
only  through  the  engraving  in  Cavaceppi  (Raccol/a,  iii.  23)  seems  very  like,  especially  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
hair  on  the  forehead. 

3 Diitschke,  Upjfizi,  No.  19S  ; Clarac,  547,  1152;  Midler- Wieseler,  Denbn.  a.  K.  ii.  771.  Cast  in  the 
Ecole  des  Beaux- Arts. 


20  6 


MYRON 


collection.  I formerly  thought  to  discern  in  it  a creation  of  the  earl}/  Argive  school,1 
on  grounds  which  will  immediately  be  made  clear  ; but  the  Myronian  character 
of  the  head  seems  to  me  now  beyond  doubt.  The  head  is  unbroken,  and  only  the 
nose  restored  ; on  the  other  hand,  the  whole  of  the  right  arm  with  the  shoulder 
is  modern,  as  well  as  the  left  hand  with  the  serpent  staff,  both  legs  including 
the  whole  of  the  right  knee  and  the  portion  of  the  drapery  that  flows  freely  out 
behind.  The  restorer  committed  the  great  mistake  of  letting  the  right  leg  appear 
drawn  back  as  in  the  act  of  walking.  The  ancient  portions  show  that  the  disengaged 


Fig.  86. — Head  in  the  British  Museum. 


right  foot  was  far  more  probably  planted  lightly  on  the  flat  of  the  sole  next  to 
the  supporting  left. 

On  the  drapery  of  the  left  shoulder  are  seen  the  remains  of  a hand  ;2  the  drapery 
too  on  the  left  side  is  less  finished  than  elsewhere  : evidently  a second  figure,  now 
lost,  stood  on  this  side.  A small  replica  in  the  Palazzo  Barberini  (Fig.  88), 3 of  careless 
workmanship  but  well  preserved,  puts  us  in  perfect  possession  of  the  group.  It  is 
Ilygicia  who  thus  lays  her  right  hand  on  the  left  shoulder  of  Asklepios. 

1 Sabouroff  Coll.  i.  PI.  24.  Text,  p.  2. 

2 Erroneously  taken  by  Diitschke  for  the  remains  of  a sculptor’s  point,  although  the  mark  had  long  been 
recognized  as  that  of  a hand — -viz.  by  the  editors  of  the  Galleria  di  Firenze,  ser.  iv.  vol.  i.  p.  72  ; after  them  by  Clarac 
in  the  text  to  No.  1152  ; further  by  Wieseler  in  the  Denkm.  a.  Kunst  to  ii.  771,  and  in  the  official  Catal.  della 
R.  Gall  d.  Uffizi,  No.  209. 

2 Matz-Duhn,  51  ; cf.  Matz,  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1870,  36.  Phot,  in  the  German  Inst,  at  Rome. 


Fig.  87. — Asklepios  in  the  Uffizi  (Florence). 


208 


MYRON 


The  head  of  the  Florentine  statue  shows  that  the  original  of  the  Asklepios  was 
an  early  work  of  the  fifth  century.  The  question  now  arises  whether  this  original  also 
formed  a group  with  Ilygieia.  This  must,  I think,  be  negatived.  It  is  clear,  in  spite 
of  the  poor  workmanship,  that  the  Hygieia  of  the  group1  is  based  on  a type  that 
hardly  came  into  existence  before  the  fourth  century,  and  is  in  any  case  much 
later  than  the  original  of  the  Asklepios.  Certainly  the  composer  of  the  little  group 
has  lost  all  traces  of  the  severe  style  in  his  Asklepios,  so  that  one  might  assume 
that  the  same  thing  has  happened  in  the  case  of  the  Hygieia  ; but  the  characteristic 
style  of  the  dress  of  the  latter  and  the  position  of  the  feet  are  so  decisive  that, 
in  spite  of  the  poor  execution,  we  can  safely  say  that  her  original  cannot  possibly 
have  been  contemporary  with  the  Asklepios.  We  gather  then  that  the  Asklepios 

was  composed  as  a single  figure,  and 
needed  no  Hygieia  : indeed,  this  figure, 
who  likewise  stands  on  the  left  leg  and 
likewise  holds  a serpent  staff  in  her  left 
hand,  forms  but  a sorry  complement  to 
the  Asklepios.  We  have  here  a fresh 
instance  of  the  device  common  in  the 
time  of  the  Empire,  of  making  up  into 
groups  figures  that  were  originally  un- 
connected. The  little  group,  to  judge 
from  the  workmanship  and  the  shape 
of  the  plinth,  was  composed  in  the 
second  or  third  century  A.D.  ; the  statue 
in  the  Uffizi,  to  judge  from  the  manner 
in  which  the  hair  is  treated,  must  be 
ascribed  to  the  age  of  the  Antonines. 

The  Asklepios,  then,  must  have 
been  originally  intended  as  an  isolated 
figure.  Its  motive,  however,  remained 
unaltered  by  adaptation  to  a group  ; 
just  as  the  old  Argive  athletes  were  left 
unchanged  when  they  were  grouped 
together  as  Orestes  with  Elektra  or 

Fig.  88. — Asklepios  and  Hygieia  in  Palazzo  Barberini  (Rome).  , - T 

Pylades,2  or  as  the  Borghese  Mars 
when  he  was  united  with  Venus.3  The 
motive  of  the  hands  in  the  Asklepios  of  the  Barberini  group  is  so  entirely  in 
harmony  with  the  whole  pose  of  the  figure,  that  we  must  assume  it  for  the 

original.  The  god  is  in  the  act  of  feeding  his  snake.  In  the  left  hand  he  holds 

a cake  or  something  of  the  kind,4  and  is  on  the  point  of  breaking  off  a morsel, 
as  it  seems,  with  his  right  to  give  it  to  the  snake,  which  is  raising  its  coils  on  his 
left  side.  In  the  little  group  the  creature  is  coiling  itself  round  the  traditional 

knotted  stick  of  Asklepios,  which  is  leaning  up  against  the  figure  in  a most 

improbable  manner,  and  evidently  only  serves  to  hold  up  the  snake.  Had 
the  stick  been  part  of  the  original  composition,  it  must  have  been  supported  under 
the  left  shoulder,  or  the  left  hand  must  have  rested  on  it.5  Neither  is  however  the 

1 The  head  is  modern.  2 Cf.  50U1  Beyl.  Winckelmannspvogr.  p.  136.  3 Cf.  infra,  on  Venus  of  Milo,  p.  384. 

* Zoega  conjectured — probably  correctly— a honey-cake  ; Matz,  a liver. 

8 This  is  the  case  in  the  Berlin  bronze,  which  is  reproduced  in  Muller-Wieseler,  Denkm.  a.  K.  ii.  772  5 'n 


ASKLEPIOS 


209 


case.  The  staff  was  naturally  indispensable  in  the  eyes  of  the  copyist  in  marble 
as  a support  for  the  serpent.  We  can  leave  it  out  of  account  in  the  bronze  original — - 
(the  treatment  of  the  hair  of  the  Florentine  head  clearly  points  to  bronze).  There 
is  nothing  in  the  attitude  of  the  god  to  lead  us  to  expect  the  existence  of  the  staff : 
he  does  not  support  himself  upon  one,  but  stands  firm  on  the  left  leg,  leaving  the 
right  free,  but  with  the  whole  sole  down — (the  Barberini  group  shows  that  the 
Florentine  statue  should  have  been  thus  restored);  he  holds  the  cake  for  the  snake 
in  the  left  hand,  which  is  extended  horizontally,  and  moves  the  right  in  the  same 
direction.  Snakes  lifting  themselves  up  without  any  support  were,  as  is  well  known, 
a favourite  theme  of  quite  early  Greek  art,  both  in  decorative1  work  and  in  the 
round,  as  for  instance  on  the  old  Spartan  reliefs,  notably  on  one  where  a 
snake  is  raising  itself  up  in  front  of  a youth  who  is  offering2  a fruit  to  it.  On 
a Thessalian  coin  of  the  fifth  century  Asklepios  is  feeding  a serpent  that  appears 
upright  in  front  of  him.3  In  a statuette  from  Epidauros4  which  goes  back  to  some 
fifth-century  original  the  snake  is  likewise  not  wreathed  about  a stick.  The  bronze 
original  of  our  statue  must  accordingly  have  had  at  its  side  a great  snake  which, 
resting  on  its  coils  (compare  the  snake  at  the  side  of  the  Parthenos),  lifted  its 
head  to  the  level  of  the  god’s  hand. 

Our  marble  copies  obviously  represent  Asklepios.  The  addition  of  Hygieia 
makes  this  plain.  It  does  not  however  follow  as  a matter  of  course  that  the  original 
belonging  to  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  also  pourtrayed  Asklepios.  A 
bearded  divinity,  feeding  a snake,  is  a figure  appropriate  to  more  than  one 
cult,  and  to  whom  different  names  might  be  assigned.  In  the  Graeco-Roman 
period  this  type  became  confined  to  Asklepios,  while  the  other  kindred  deities  of 
health,  from  whose  midst  he  sprang,  retained  only  a local  significance.  Our  statue 
might  very  well  have  represented  originally  some  Athenian  divinity,  akin  to  Asklepios, 
associated  with  the  serpent,  a divinity  significant  only  in  some  local  cult.  Such  were, 
for  example,  at  Athens  the  popular  Hero  Iatros  and  the  Hero  Alkon,5  at  Oropos 
Amphiaraus,  and  at  Lebadeia  Trophonios  ; the  two  last  were,  we  know,  repre- 
sented in  exactly  the  same  way  as  Asklepios.6  The  reason  for  this  likeness  lies,  not 
in  an  extension  of  the  Asklepios  type  to  the  others,  but  in  the  fact  that  this  type 
had  originally  a wider  signification.  It  might  even  be  that  our  statue  represents  Zeus 
Meilichios, Avho  was  intimately  associated  with  the  snake,  and  was  a genuine  Chthonian 
divinity  of  benign  character.7 

In  this  statue  the  personality  of  such  a god  is  very  effectively  embodied.  The 
hair  combed  down  from  the  crown  of  the  head  on  the  forehead  and  framing  the  face, 
together  with  the  long  beard,  give  to  the  face  an  expression  of  solemn  melancholy.  In 
the  turn  and  inclination  of  the  head,  however,  and  in  the  kindly  mouth,  we  read 

Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  636.  (Friederichs,  Kl.  Kims/,  it.  Industrie,  No.  1846.)  This  bronze,  like  its  replica  in  Berlin 
(Friederichs,  1846a),  belongs  in  design  and  technique  to  the  16 — 17th  century:  the  design  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  the  Florentine  statue  : the  artist  skilfully  allows  both  hands  to  rest  on  the  staff. 

1 Cf.  Olympia,  vol.  iv.  Die  Bronzen,  No.  906  seq.  Text,  p.  145  seq. 

2 Ath.  Mitth.  1877,  PI.  23  ; Skulpt.  in  Berlin,  No.  732.  Cf.  also  the  great  Meilichios  snake,  ibid. 
No.  723,  and  various  other  reliefs,  e.g.  Le  Bas,  Voy.  Arch.,  Mon.  Jig.  39  : also  the  vase  'Erpti/jt.  apx ■ 1890,  PI.  7. 

3 Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Thessaly,  PI.  5,  9.  4 Kabbadias,  y\virra  cpya  270. 

5 Cf.  Deneken  in  Roscher’s  Lexihon,  i.  2483  ; Sabouroff  Coll.  i.  Introd.  p.  20. 

6 For  Trophonios  see  Pans.  ix.  39,  3,4;  for  Amphiaraos,  Deneken,  loc.  cit.  2588,  and  AtArlov  apx ■ 1891, 
p.  89,  No.  23.  It  is  far  more  likely  that  one  of  these  two  and  not  Asklepios  is  represented  on  the  Boeotian 
vase,  ’E<pr\p..  apx ■ 1890,  PI.  7. 

7 Cf.  Sabouroff  Coll.  i.  Introd.  p.  22.  A votive  relief  of  the  fourth  century  in  the  Peiraieus  represents  Zeus 
Meilichios  (name  inscribed)  enthroned  with  a horn  of  plenty  and  a bowl  ; the  sacrificial  victim  which  is  being 
offered  to  him  is  a pig. 


210 


MYRON 


gentleness  and  goodness.  The  action  is  above  all  characteristic,  in  that  the  god  pays 
no  heed  to  himself,  but  feeds  his  snake,  seemingly  wholly  absorbed  in  the  occupation. 
In  this  we  see  the  tenderness  and  care  he  bestows  on  all  that  trust  in  him  ■ the 
nature  of  the  healing  god  is  thus  accentuated,  and  at  the  same  time  the  snake,  which 
is  his  attribute,  is  brought  into  close  and  actual  union  with  him.  Only  an  artist  of 
exceptional  originality  can  have  created  this  characteristic  figure,  which  differs  from 
most  of  the  statues  of  gods  of  the  time  in  the  fact  that  the  god  is  represented  as 
engaged  in  some  action.  We  believe  that  Myron  may  have  been  this  artist. 

Let  us  examine  the  figure  more  closely.  The  pose  is  evidently  borrowed  from 
the  canon  of  Hagelaidas  ; the  left  supporting  leg  with  the  right  leg  placed  close  to  it, 
the  drooping  left  shoulder,  and  the  inclination  of  the  head  to  the  same  side,  the  left 
forearm  horizontally  extended  and  holding  some  object,  the  upper  part  of  the  arm 
lying  close  to  the  body,  and  the  broad  shoulders,  are  all  traits  that  recall  this  canon. 
At  the  same  time  we  can  also  observe  great  differences  ; quiet  and  dull  repose  are 
replaced  by  action  and  concentrated  attention.  The  head  and  the  upper  part  of  the 
body  are  not  simply  inclined  to  the  left  side,  but  turned  that  way ; and  the  right  arm 
does  not  hang  down  but  is  in  active  movement — in  a word,  everything  combines  to 
represent  a definite  action. 

The  fidelity  to  the  canon  of  Hagelaidas,  together  with  the  bold  departure  from  it  in 
certain  respects,  alike  point  to  Myron.  The  head  decides  the  question.  The  forehead, 
the  eyes  with  their  rather  pronounced  lids,  the  full  mouth  with  the  slightly  parted 
lips,  the  tangled  profusion  of  curls,  and  the  shape  of  the  head,  are  all  distinctly 
Myron  ian. 

For  criticism  of  detail,  two  heads  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  89)1  and  in  the 
Louvre 2 respectively  are  of  weight : the  original  which  they  reproduce 3 must  have 
resembled  our  Asklepios  so  closely  that  it  almost  seems  as  if  the  two  heads  were 
merely  variants,  due  to  the  hand  of  the  copyist.4  Both  are  quite  erect ; the  one  is 
furnished  with  a terminal  bust,  and  the  other  probably  terminated  in  the  same  way. 
It  is  conceivable  that  both  reproduce  our  ‘Asklepios’  head,  but  altered  and  posed 
erect  in  order  to  suit  the  exigencies  of  a terminal  bust.  Still,  if  a different  original 
did  actually  underlie  them,  it  certainly  proceeded  from  the  same  artist  and  had 
substantially  the  same  significance  as  our  ‘ Asklepios.’ 

In  both  heads  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  hair  and  of  the  moustache  produces 
an  impression  of  far  greater  fidelity  to  the  original  than  in  the  Florentine  statue,  where 
the  finicking  character  of  the  work  reveals  the  mannerism  of  the  age  of  the  Antonines. 
Both  the  heads  also  display  to  perfection  Myron’s  modelling  of  the  forehead  : the 
eyelids  are  pronounced,  and  the  full  mobile  mouth  allows  the  teeth  to  show  as  in  the 
Cassel  Apollo.5  The  delicate  root  of  the  nose  and  the  line  of  the  bridge  of  the  nose — 
preserved  in  the  London  copy — are  all  quite  in  Myron’s  manner.  Further,  in  the  last- 
named  head  the  hair  of  the  eyebrows  is  indicated  ; this  detail,  which  we  also  noted  in  the 
bearded  Herakles  (p.  179),  may  possibly  be  referred  to  the  original.  The  treatment 

1 Spec,  of  Anc.  Sculpt,  i.  16;  Anc.  Marbles , ii.  29;  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkvi.  No.  229.  Term  with 
head,  preserved  without  any  restoration. 

2 Louvre,  No.  2055,  belong  to  the  Campana  Collection,  unfortunately  very  unfavourably  placed  at  present  in 
the  Salle  du  Mars  Borghese.  The  head  is  broken  at  the  point  where  it  joins  the  neck  ; term  restored  : 
otherwise  only  the  nose  is  modern.  The  beard  and  the  locks  of  hair  about  the  middle  of  the  forehead  are  much 
damaged  ; workmanship  good  and  careful. 

a The  heads  are  replicas,  the  hair  agreeing  lock  for  lock.  There  is  a third  very  poor  replica  in  the  Pal. 
Orlandini  in  Florence.  Dtitschke,  ii.  503  ; Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelv.  240,  241. 

4 The  chief  difference  is  in  the  hair  at  the  sides  falling  over  the  ears. 

5 The  teeth  are  plain  in  the  Paris  head. 


Fig.  89. — Terminal  bust  in  the  British  Museum. 


212 


MYRON 


of  the  moustache  with  its  long  flowing  lines  that  pass  into  the  beard,  and  the  way  in 
which  the  locks  of  hair  are  detached  from  the  ground,  recall  the  same  bearded  Herakles, 
the  two  works  probably  belonging  to  the  same  period  of  the  artist’s  career. 

The  hair  falls  over  the  middle  of  the  forehead  in  a rich  unstudied  mass,  which 
contributes  in  no  slight  degree  to  the  sombre  expression.  A simple  fillet  cutting  deep 
into  the  locks  is  the  sole  adornment.  In  spite  of  the  severe  style  the  head  is  perfect  in 
its  expression  of  character.  The  custom  that  prevailed  in  later  days  of  emphasizing 
the  under-world  divinities1  by  hair  falling  low  over  the  forehead  is  merely  a develop- 
ment of  what  was  begun  in  these  heads. 

The  drapery  of  the  ‘ Asklepios  ’ is  arranged  in  a simple  and  appropriate  manner, 
without  regard  to  beautiful  or  effective  motives.  The  piece  brought  down  over  the 
shoulder  may  be  compared  with  the  corresponding  arrangement  in  the  Riccardi  bust. 
We  cannot  enter  into  details,  for  the  copyist  of  the  statue  was  in  all  probability  as 
inexact  in  the  drapery  as  in  the  hair  ; he  doubtless  tried  to  add  richness  to  the  broad, 
severe  traits  of  the  original  by  the  introduction  of  lesser  intermediate  folds  ; we  must 
probably  subtract  considerably  from  the  number  of  folds,  and  conceive  the  main 
features  of  the  drapery  to  have  been  treated  more  simply  and  severely.2 

Thus  this  statue  of  a god  or  hero  of  healing  appears  to  be  a copy  after  an  earlier 
work  by  Myron,  in  which  however  he  had  already  unfolded  to  the  full  the  powers  of 
characterization  which  we  have  learnt  to  admire  in  his  later  figures  of  gods  and 
heroes  ; among  these  the  Florence  Asklepios,  in  which  a definite  action  is  combined 
with  the  turn  of  the  upper  torso,  deserves  a special  place. 


XIV.  The  Munich  Zeus  and  the  first  Argive  School. 

Another  statue  of  extreme  interest  must  be  considered  next,  as  much  for  its  points 
of  difference  as  of  resemblance.  We  have  seen  that  Myron,  like  Pheidias  in  his 
younger  days,  often  employed  the  canon  of  Hagelaidas.  It  is  therefore  well  to  become 
acquainted  at  this  point  with  a statue  almost  contemporary  with  the  Myronian  works, 
and  which  not  only  exhibits  this  old  canon  but  seems  to  have  been  created  in  Argos 
itself. 

I refer  to  the  familiar  statue  in  Munich  (Figs.  90,  91)3  which  Brunn  and 
Kekule  refer  to  Polykleitos,  but  which  differs  widely  from  the  undoubted 
Polykleitan  works,  and  is  plainly  considerably  earlier.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the 
type  of  Hagelaidas  underlies  this  conception,  and  has  only  been  so  far  modified 
that  the  right  leg  is  drawn  back  in  the  walking  motive.  For  the  rest  there 
is  the  same  characteristic  hardness  so  familiar  in  works  of  the  old  type,  the  same 
disproportionate  width  of  the  breast  in  comparison  with  the  hips,  and  the  same  angular 
shoulders  well  drawn  back.4  The  attitude  of  repose  with  the  weight  on  the  left  foot, 

1 The  type  afterwards  so  frequently  used  for  Sarapis  must  have  come  into  existence  by  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century.  A very  well  preserved  and  significant  statue  of  the  Louvre  (Frohner,  33  ; Bouillon,  iii.  stat.  1,  3 ; Clarac, 
31 1,  681)  represents  Zeus  (eagle  and  thunderbolt  are  in  part  ancient)  quite  in  the  style  of  the  fifth  century: 
the  head  has  the  wisps  of  hair  falling  over  the  forehead.  It  is  probably  a Zeus  Meilichios,  and  its  artist  should 
perhaps  be  looked  for  in  the  school  of  Alkamenes. 

2 The  Cassel  copy  of  the  Lemnia  is  a clear  example  [supra,  p.  5 seq. ) of  the  extent  to  which  copyists 
remodelled  the  simple  draperies  of  more  ancient  statues  at  times. 

3 Brunn,  Glypt.  5,  No.  160 ; Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  480  ; Kekule,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  iii.  1888,  p.  37,  PI.  1 ; 
L.  v.  Urlichs,  Beitr.  z.  Gesch.  d.  Glypt.  p.  16;  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  122.  No  replicas  are 
known  to  me. 

4 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmanns-brogr.  pp.  138,  140,  143,  146. 


Fig.  90. — Statue  in  Munich, 


214 


MYRON 


the  droop  of  the  left  shoulder,  the  inclination  of  the  head  to  the  same  side,  the  hang- 
ing right  arm,  and  the  left  forearm  extended  horizontally — all  these  are  familiar  and 
unmistakable  traits  of  the  old  scheme.  The  head  shows  also  that  the  artist  was  com- 
pletely under  the  influence  of  Hagelaidas.  This  is  especially  evident  in  the  profile : 
the  whole  outline  of  the  head,  the  line  of  the  neck,  the  fillet  that  lies  flat  on  the 
hair,  its  shape,  and  the  very  way  in  which  the  hair  meets  it ; further,  the  form  of  the  short 
thick  curls  themselves — all  these  accord  so  remarkably  with  the  best  copies  of  the 
head  of  the  figure  by  Stephanos  (Fig.  92), 1 and  on  the  other  hand  present  such 
marked  contrasts  to  the  other  works  of  the  same  period,  such  as  those  of  Myron,  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  tendency  of  the  artist.  He  must  stand  in  direct 
relation  to  the  artist  of  the  Stephanos  figure,  whom  we  conjecture  to  have  been 
Hagelaidas.  As  compared  however  with  the  style  which  we  must  assume  for  Hage- 
laidas, the  artist  of  the  Munich  statue  is  considerably  less  hard  ; he  gives  fuller,  softer 
flesh  to  the  body  ; he  indicates  the  veins  and  sets  the  eyes  more  deeply  ; he  opens 
the  mouth  and  makes  the  lower  part  of  the  forehead  project  ; in  a word,  his  system 
of  forms  shows  a development  equal  to  Myron’s.  Yet  one  has  only  to  compare  the 
modelling  of  the  forehead  or  the  treatment  of  hair  and  beard  to  find  that  he  lacks 
all  that  character  of  individuality,  that  charm  of  real  life,  which  stamps  the  Myronian 
works. 

The  inclination  to  recognize  in  the  Munich  statue  the  manner  of  Polykleitos 
originates  in  a perception,  which  I fully  share,  that  all  the  Argive  works  of  the  fifth 
century  bear  an  inner  relation  to  one  another.  In  the  head  of  the  Munich  statue, 
for  instance,  the  first  aim,  as  with  Polykleitos,  is  to  secure  pure  bright  beauty  of 
form,  not,  as  with  Myron,  the  expression  of  individual  character.  I myself  some  years 
ago  conjectured  this  statue  to  be  an  early  work  of  Polykleitos  as  pupil  of  Hagelaidas, 
and  found  a support  for  my  theory  in  the  oldest  extant  basis  of  Polykleitos,  that  of 
Kyniskos  in  Olympia,  on  which  the  traces  of  the  feet  point  to  a figure  standing  much 
like  the  Munich  statue.2  But  the  stylistic  divergences  from  Polykleitos  are  too 
pronounced,  and  the  whole  system  of  forms  so  strongly  contradicts  this  artist’s 
personal  style,3  that  I now  consider  my  former  theory  quite  untenable.  On  the 
contrary,  the  statue  must  belong  to  the  generation  of  Argive  artists  who  intervened 
between  Hagelaidas  and  Polykleitos. 

It  is  often  assumed — on  the  ground  of  the  familiar  passage  in  Pliny — that  it  was 
Polykleitos  who  introduced  the  walking  motive.  This  opinion  is  however  erroneous. 
Polykleitos  borrowed  this  motive  for  his  canon,  and  thereby  won  for  it  widespread  favour 
and  popularity  ; but  he  did  not  invent  it.  The  merit  of  the  invention  belongs  to  the 
Argive  artists  of  the  generation  that  preceded  him,  about  the  80th  Olympiad.  Any 
doubts  as  to  this  point  owing  to  the  Munich  statue  being  the  work  of  a Roman 
copyist  can  be  disposed  of  with  the  help  of  an  original  monument.  This  is  a block  of 
marble  from  the  dedicatory  offering  of  Smikythos  in  Olympia  ; to  judge  from  the 
perfectly  plain  footmarks,  it  once  supported  a statue  which  stood  in  just  the  same 
attitude  as  the  Munich  statue.4  The  period  of  the  offering  is  the  same  as  that  which 

1 Specially  with  the  head  in  the  Lateran,  No.  356  (Fig.  92),  and  with  the  Orestes  in  the  Louvre  group  : the 
last  may  be  studied  to  advantage  in  the  cast  of  the  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts,  No.  6757  j 50th  Berl.  Winckel- 
mannsprogr.  pp.  136,  138.  The  Capranesi  head  in  the  British  Museum  {ibid.  p.  148,  note  82)  may  also  be 
compared.  The  face  measurements  of  the  Munich  figure  come  close  to  those  of  the  Stephanos  figure. 
Cf.  Kalkmann,  Gesichtsproport.  p.  60. 

2 Cf.  infra,  under  Polykleitos,  p.  249  seq.  3 For  instance,  in  the  treatment  of  abdomen  and  pubes. 

4 It  is  the  block  with  the  largest  fragment  of  the  dedicatory  inscription.  Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  No.  31  a ; 
deep  depression  for  the  back  part  of  the  left  foot,  which  stood  firm.  Close  by,  on  the  same  level  as  the  heel 
of  the  left  foot,  is  the  hollow  for  the  ball  of  the  right  foot.  On  the  Munich  statue  too  the  ball  of  the 


ARGIVE  STATUE 


215 


must  be  ascribed  to  our  statue,  about  the  80th  Olympiad  (soon  after  RC.  466)  ; and 
its  artist,  Dionysios  of  Argos,  belongs  to  the  school  of  art  to  which  the  Munich  statue 
must  be  ascribed. 

The  first  introduction  of  the  walking  motive  was  clearly  a significant  departure 
on  the  part  of  some  individual  artist.  In  the  period  preceding  the  basis  of  the  work 
of  Dionysios  and  the  Munich  statue  there  is  no  trace  of  it,  and  after  them,  even  in  the 
Argive  school,  the  older  attitude  of  repose  remained  long  in  favour.  In  the  works  of 
Myron,  and  above  all  in  the  older  Attic  works,  the  walking  motive  is  wholly  unknown. 
We  may,  then,  conjecture  that  it  was  Dionysios  of  Argos  or  his  contemporary 
Glaukos,  the  artists  of  the  offering  of  Smikythos,  who  first  introduced  this  innovation. 
And  to  them  or  to  an  artist  of  the  same  standing  must  also  be  ascribed  the  original  of 
the  Munich  statue.  This  statue,  while  still  keeping  in  everything  else  to  the  old  type 
of  Hagelaidas,  shows  what  a powerful  new  impetus  was  derived  from  the  introduction 
of  the  walking  motive  ; not  but  what  the  hard  angular  forms,  in  which  this  motive 
first  appears,  are  separated  by  a long  distance  from  the  perfect  rounded  harmonies 
which  Polykleitos  imparted  to  it. 

We  have  still  to  consider  an  interesting  find  from  Olympia,  which  shows  that  the 
statuary  type  of  the  master  of  the  Munich  figure  was  employed  in  this  centre  of 
Peloponnesian  art  activity,  as  we  can  prove  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  canon  of 
Hagelaidas.1  A colossal  torso  from  the  Olympia  excavations 2 displays  so  close 
a resemblance  to  the  Munich  statue  that  it  must  be  referred  to  the  same  artist. 
Unfortunately  it  is  not  an  original,  but  evidently  only  a late  copy,  executed  in  Pentelic 
marble,  possibly  to  replace  a stolen  bronze  original,  or  possibly  it  was  a new  dedica- 
tion, copied  from  an  older  work.  The  torso  accords  with  the  Munich  statue  in  all  but 
trifling  points;3  in  it  too  the  shoulders  are  disproportionately  wide,4  yet  here  again, 
as  compared  with  the  canon  of  Hagelaidas,  the  forms  display  the  same  full,  round, 
fleshy  character  ; here  too  the  veins  on  the  arms  are  indicated. 

The  torso  of  Olympia  by  reason  of  its  size  is  in  all  probability  to  be  referred  to  a 
statue  of  Zeus  ; indeed,  from  the  place  where  it  was  found,  one  might  hazard  the  con- 
jecture that  it  was  a Zeus  named  by  Pausanias  without  mention  of  the  material,  which 
had  no  inscription,  but  which  was  described  as  a dedication  of  Mummius  ; 5 a statue 
of  this  kind  might  very  well  be  copied  from  an  earlier  work.  The  Munich  statue 

right  foot  is  on  a level  with  the  heel  of  the  left  foot.  The  block  belonged  to  the  offering  of  Smikythos  erected 
on  the  north  side  of  the  temple,  assigned  by  Pausanias  (v.  26,  2)  to  Dionysios.  There  are  ancient  footmarks  on 
two  other  blocks  of  this  offering  ; in  this  case  however  both  feet  were  resting  with  full  sole.  From  these  it  is 
apparent  that  the  figures  were  considerably  less  than  life-size  (length  of  the  footmark  16  cm.)  The  Roman 
footmarks  on  the  under  side  of  two  of  these  blocks  are  quite  different. 

1 Cf.  in  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  146  seq. 

2 Perfectly  nude  torso  in  the  museum  at  Olympia  : the  neck  is  altogether  wanting,  as  also  the  legs  fiom 
a little  above  the  middle  of  the  thigh  ; a considerable  part  of  the  left  upper  arm  is  preserved  ; smaller  portion 
of  right  upper  arm.  From  the  hollow  of  the  neck  to  the  upper  edge  of  the  pubes  075,  to  the  navel  o-555. 
Distance  between  the  nipples  o'40.  Greatest  breadth  in  the  hips  0^49,  in  the  shoulders  075.  The  statue 
was  therefore  considerably  larger  than  the  Munich  one  (where  the  distance  between  the  nipples  measures  0'32). 

3 The  left  upper  arm  of  the  torso  is  somewhat  drawn  back  instead  of  forward,  as  in  the  Munich  statue.  Further, 
the  left  shoulder  of  the  torso  droops  less  : the  forms  are  altogether  somewhat  less  meagre.  The  Munich  statue  is 
considerably  better  in  technique,  and  seems  a more  careful  copy  than  the  Olympian  torso. 

4 The  pubes  is  sharply  defined  as  in  archaic  work  : the  locks  of  hair  are  treated  in  the  stiff  style,  but  they 
are  only  lightly  indicated,  and  not  worked  out. 

5 The  torso  was  found  on  the  I2th  of  March  1880,  between  the  western  terrace  walls  and  the  western  Altis 
walls,  a little  south  of  the  southern  line  of  the  palaistra,  lying  free  ( i.e . not  built  into  any  construction)  below 
the  green  deposit  that  came  down  from  the  Heraion,  and  according  to  all  appearances  in  its  original  site. 
Treu,  to  whom  I am  indebted  for  the  above  information,  is  reminded  of  the  Zeus  of  Mummius,  which  stood 
here  near  the  west  wall  of  the  Altis  facing  towards  the  west  (Paus.  v.  24,  8) : this  identification  seems  to  me 
very  probable. 


Fig.  91. — Head  of  statue  in  Munich. 


ARGIVE  STATUE 


217 


is  interpreted  by  Kekul6  as  Zeus,  bearing  in  his  left  hand  the  eagle,  in  his  right  the 
lightning.  This  interpretation  satisfactorily  explains  the  position  of  the  arms,  and 
also  the  whole  majestic,  kingly  personality  of  the  figure,  and  is  now  further  cor- 
roborated by  the  kindred  Olympian  torso.1  Yet  how  comes  Zeus  to  have  quite  close- 
cropped  hair  ? We  certainly  can  only  then  interpret  this  figure  as  Zeus,  when  this 
strange  and  wholly  unwonted  mode  of  treatment  is  attested  for  the  epoch  and  school  to 
which  our  statue  belongs.  And  this  actually  appears  to  be  the  case.  It  is  true  that 
among  the  numerous  representations  of  Zeus  on  monuments  of  every  kind  I can  only 
point  to  two  examples  with  the  same  close-cropped  hair,  but  these  are  sufficient. 
Shortish  hair  is  quite  common  in  representations  of  Zeus  : on  Attic  vases  the  type 


Fig.  92. — Replica  of  the  head  of  the  statue  by  Stephanos. 


appears  first  in  the  period  about  403  B.C.  (cf.  supra , p.  42),  and  at  a later  date  becomes 
very  popular  ; quite  in  accordance  with  these  Attic  vases  is  the  type  on  the  familiar 
Eleian  coins  of  the  fourth  century.2  But  this  type  of  hair,  in  which  the  locks  though 
short  are  yet  flowing,  does  not  help  us  where  the  question  is  of  hair  close-cropped 
like  an  athlete’s  ; besides,  it  belongs  to  a considerably  later  period  than  that  of  our 
statue.  On  the  other  hand,  an  isolated  example  of  the  type  in  question  occurs  in 
archaic  vase-painting  in  the  Zeus  engaged  in  combat  with  the  Giants.3  On  this 
follows  a famous  coin-type  of  Elis 4 (PI.  VI.  22),  which  however  wras  only  struck 

1 It  must  however  be  mentioned  that  a coin  of  Nicaea  (Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Pont  us,  PI.  32,  13  ; p.  158)  struck 
under  Commodus  represents  Hephaistos  with  a hammer  in  the  right  hand  and  a bar  of  metal  in  the  left,  in  a 
scheme  closely  resembling  that  of  the  Munich  statue  ; the  original  must  have  been  a work  of  the  same  school. 

2 Head,  Hist.  Nutn.  p.  355,  fig.  234  ; Guide,  PI.  23,  33.  3 Overbeck,  Kunstmyth.  Atlas,  PI.  4.  6. 

4 Only  two  specimens  of  the  coin  are  at  present  known:  (a)  London  (Plead,  Hist.  Hum.  p.  354,  fig-  230  ; 
Guide,  PI.  14,  29  ; P.  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  8,  6 ; Stephani,  Compte  Rendu  for  1876,  p.  224,  PI.  No.  5).  (i$)  Berlin 

F F 


218 


MYRON 


during  quite  a short  period,  and  may  probably  be  dated  circa  B.C.  420  ; for  it  is  the 
counterpart  to  the  beautiful  type  of  Hera,  which  according  to  a plausible  conjecture 
of  Percy  Gardner’s  is  to  be  referred  to  the  League  contracted  in  that  year  between 
Elis  and  Argos  (PI.  VI.  23). 1 In  the  head  of  Hera  it  is  thought,  and  probably 
correctly,  that  we  have  the  Polykleitan  Ilcra  of  Argos  ; the  head  of  Zeus  too  must 
have  been  based  on  some  famous  work  of  art,  but  not  on  one  of  the  period  of  420, 
for  the  whole  type — -with  the  slanting  profile,  the  massive  beard,  and  the  ear  set  rather 
high  up — seems  to  me  to  point  pretty  clearly  to  the  fact  that  we  have  on  the  coin  a 
work  of  the  severer  style  rendered  with  the  freedom  natural  to  the  fifth  century  ; 
the  obvious  suggestion  is  that  this  was  an  Argive  work,  dedicated  by  the  newly 
formed  League,  and  highly  prized  by  them. 

The  next  and  last  instance  of  a short-haired  head  of  Zeus  occurs  on  the  coins 
of  Syracuse 2 and  of  the  Italian  Lokri  (PI.  VI.  20).3  It  is  merely  a type  which  was 
stamped  after  B.C.  345  4 on  a portion  of  the  coinage  of  these  two  cities  (which  were 
intimately  connected  both  politically  and  commercially),  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
tyrant  Dionysios  from  both,  on  the  occasion  of  the  restoration  of  the  Democracy. 
This  type  is,  however,  evidently  the  free  reproduction  of  an  older  work  of  the  fifth 
century,5  for  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  types  that  reproduce  the  spirit  and 
taste  of  the  epoch  circa  B.C.  345.  The  inscription  on  the  Syracusan  specimens,  which 
characterizes  Zeus  as  ’EXei'^epto?,  leaves  no  room  for  doubting  what  this  older  work 
was  : it  was  the  colossal  figure  of  Zeus  Eleutherios— of  Zeus  the  Deliverer — which 
the  Syracusans  had  set  up  as  an  enduring  memorial  of  that  earlier  expulsion  of  a 
tyrant  and  democratic  revolution  in  466.6  To  this  pledge  of  freedom  the  people  had 
recourse  on  the  similar  occasion  in  the  fourth  century,  when  the  festival  and  the  great 
sacrifices  in  front  of  the  statue  were  once  more  revived.  Now  it  is  an  old  conjecture 
of  Haverkamp,  approved  by  Eckhel,7  that  a reproduction  of  this  Syracusan  Zeus 
Eleutherios  has  been  preserved  in  a coin-type  of  the  two  consuls  of  the  stormy  year 
49  B.C. — L.  Cornelius  Lentulus  and  C.  Claudius  Marcellus.8  On  these  coins  the  type  is 
associated  withadesign  that  is  purely  Sicilian — namely, with  the  triquetra,  which  appears 
on  the  reverse  in  its  essentially  Sicilian  form.9  This  must  evidently  have  been  selected 
with  reference  to  the  Consul  Marcellus  and  his  glorious  ancestor  the  Conqueror  ot 
Sicily.10  The  conjecture  has  therefore  everything  in  its  favour.  The  figure  of  Zeus  in 

(still  unpublished) : from  a different  die  to  the  London  specimen,  yet  agreeing  with  it  almost  exactly  ; the  hair  is 
somewhat  better  preserved.  The  little  curls  are  very  like  the  hair  on  the  Munich  statue  ; it  clearly  imitates  a 
work  of  this  style.  The  moustache  streams  on  either  side  over  the  beard. 

1 P.  Gardner  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Peloponn.  p.  36  sqq.  PI.  12,  11. 

2 In  Syracuse  only  in  bronze  : Head,  Hist.  Hum.  p.  157  ; Numism.  Chron.  1874,  PI.  7,  10,  11  ; 1876,  PL  2, 
6 ; 3,  17  ; cf.  Overbeck,  Zeus , p.  213.  On  the  electrum  and  silver  coins  of  the  same  period  is  represented  an 
ordinary  free  type  of  Zeus,  corresponding  to  the  taste  of  the  time. 

3 In  Lokri  in  both  silver  and  bronze  : Head,  Hist.  Hum.  p.  86  seq.  ; Guide , PI.  25,  21  ; Gardner,  Types,  PI. 

5,  14;  Sallet’s  Numism.  Ztsch.  xvii.  PI.  I,  7 ; Overbeck,  Zeus , p.  101.  The  finest  silver  specimen  appears  to 
be  that  in  the  Gotha  collection.  4 For  the  date  cf.  Head  ( loc . cit . ) 

5 This  is  also  Von  Sallet’s  view,  whom  I was  able  to  consult  on  the  point. 

6 Diodor.  xi.  72,  2.  Cf.  Kekule  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1888,  p,  43  ; Busolt,  Griech.  Gesch.  ii.  292. 

7 Doctrina  Hum.  v.  182. 

8 Good  reproduction  in  Head,  Guide,  PI.  66,  16.  Cf.  Babelon,  Monn.  de  la  Rlpubl.  Rom.  i.  424  ; Jahrb.  d. 
Inst.  1888,  p.  43. 

9 We  find  too  as  reverse  the  curly  head  of  a youth,  closely  related  to  the  Zeus  Hellanios  of  the  Syracusan 
coins  (Overbeck,  Zeus , Miinzt.  3,  1,  2 ; p.  196),  and  therefore  possibly  connected  with  it  : this  is  rendered 
however  less  probable  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  a similar  type — though  at  the  same  time  less  akin  to  the 
Syracusan — appears  elsewhere  on  the  coins  of  Roman  families,  where  it  is  explained  as  Vejovis. 

10  So  Eckhel  [loc.  cit.),  who  also  remarks — and  rightly — that  these  coins  need  not  on  this  account  have  been 
struck  in  Sicily,  which  would  be  unlikely  after  the  events  of  the  year  49  ; this  supposition  has  been  made  into  a 
fact  by  many  of  the  more  recent  authorities. 


ARGIVE  STATUE 


219 


question — and  this  is  what  is  of  special  interest  to  us — displays  a decided  likeness 
to  the  Munich  statue.  The  design  on  the  coin,  in  spite  of  the  careless  execution, 
reproduces  as  though  intentionally  just  the  same  pose,  particularly  in  the  drooping 
left  shoulder  and  the  disproportionate  width  of  breast.  The  lower  part  of  the  right 
leg  seems  to  have  been  conceived  as  drawn  back,  though  this  is  not  very  obvious,  by 
reason  of  the  front  view  which  has  been  adopted.  The  sole  divergence  in  the  pose — 
the  right  hand  stretched  out  sideways — may  be  explained  from  the  impossibility  of 
representing  the  thunderbolt  from  the  front.  The  head  is  so  slightly  and  carelessly 
indicated  that  we  must  not  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  fact  that  it  seems  to  wear  the 
usual  crown  of  hair.  Thus  it  seems  permissible  to  conjecture  that  the  Munich  statue 
is  actually  a copy  of  the  Zeus  Eleutherios  erected  in  Syracuse  in  466.  This  date 
would  exactly  accord  with  the  style  of  the  statue,  and  would  not  conflict  with  what 
we  have  ascertained  about  its  school,  for  the  Argive  artists,  Hagclaidas  among  the 
first,  seem  to  have  been  employed  on  many  occasions  for  the  West,  and  the  artists 
who  worked  for  Smikythos  might  well  have  received  commissions  from  Syracuse 
as  well. 

It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  Argive  artists  that  they  should  have 
wholly  divested  the  king  of  the  gods  of  his  characteristic  adornment  of  hair,  and 
formed  him  after  the  same  pattern  of  manly  beauty  as  the  victorious  athletes  ; 
for,  in  their  search  after  pure  beauty  of  form,  they  got  further  away  from  the  power  of 
characterization. 

Still  this  type  could  only  have  a transitory  duration.  The  characteristic  creations 
which  Attic  art  was  producing  about  this  time  soon  became  the  prevailing  types  in  the 
representation  of  the  gods.  We  have  on  several  occasions  tried  to  show  that  in  this 
Myron  played  a leading  part ; we  may  recall  by  way  of  contrast  the  Zeus  that  we 
ascribed  conjecturally  to  him  ; there  we  found  a deep  understanding  of  the  nature 
of  the  god  represented  ; it  was  the  veritable  Zeus,  while  in  the  statue  we  have  just 
been  studying  we  seem  merely  to  behold  a beautiful  man. 

With  this  contrast  we  close  for  the  time  our  inquiry  concerning  Myron,  and  in 
the  following  chapter  turn  to  Polykleitos  himself,  who  follows  immediately  upon 
the  stage  of  art  with  which  we  have  just  become  acquainted. 


POLYKLEITOS 


POLYKLEITOS 


I.  Historical  and  Epigraphical  Evidence. 

THE  preceding  chapters  have  already  taught  us  some- 
thing about  Polykleitos,  which  it  is  well  to  begin 
by  recapitulating.  As  regards  his  date,  we  saw 
(p.  130)  that  there  was  no  reason  for  doubting  the  evidence 
of  Plato,  who  makes  Polykleitos  a contemporary  of  Pheidias. 
We  next  obtained  B.C.  440  as  the  approximate  date  of  his 
Amazon,  a work  which  must  naturally  have  been  executed 
at  a time  when  he  was  already  an  artist  of  acknowledged 
position.  The  famous  Doryphoros  must  belong  to  a still 
earlier  period,  partly  because  it  anticipates  the  Amazon  in 
many  points,  and  partly  because  of  the  flat  treatment  of  the 
hair.  These  considerations  show  that  the  artistic  activity  of 
Polykleitos  began  at  least  as  early  as  B.C.  450,  a date  at 
which  the  walking  motive  must  have  been  current  in  Argive 
art,  since,  as  we  noted  before,  the  Argive  artist  Dionysios 
employed  it  as  early  as  about  B.C.  460.  We  saw  too  (p.  196) 
that  Polykleitos  cannot  have  been,  as  ancient  tradition  had 
it,  actually  the  pupil  of  Hagelaidas,  for  a whole  generation  of 
artists  intervenes  between  him  and  the  founder  of  the  school. 

The  next  certain  date  in  the  life  of  Polykleitos  is  B.C.  420  (01.  90),  when  he 
made  the  gold  and  ivory  Hera  for  the  new  temple  at  Argos,  an  event  by  which 
his  whole  career  was  dated  in  classical  times  (Plin.  xxxiv.  § 49).  We  can  obtain 
a fair  notion  of  the  artist’s  style  at  this  period  ; for  it  seems  certain  that  his  Hera 
was  the  model  for  the  majestic  head  of  the  goddess  which  makes  its  appearance 
on  the  coinage  of  both  Argos  and  of  Elis  at  the  very  time  when  the  statue  of 
Polykleitos  was  set  up  (Plate  VI.  23).1 

1 See  supra,  p.  218.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  there  is  no  connexion  what- 
soever between  the  Hera  of  Polykleitos  and  either  the  Farnese  ‘Hera’  (Conze,  Beitrage  z.  Gesch.  d.  Grie. 
Plastik,  p.  1,  and  others)  or  the  girl’s  head  recently  discovered  during  the  American  excavations  at  the  Heraion 
of  Argos  (see  Arch.  Stud.  H.  Brunn  dargebr.  1893).  As  to  the  Farnese  head,  the  affinities  it  presents  to  the 
Artemis  of  the  Aktaion  metope  from  the  Heraion  at  Selinos,  and  the  further  affinities  between  these  Selinuntian 
metopes  and  the  school  of  Kritios  and  Nesiotes,  make  me  refer  this  ‘ Hera  ’ — or  more  correctly  this  Artemis — to 
the  latter  school. 


224 


POLYKLEITOS 


Nothing  is  known  as  to  the  date  of  the  death  of  Polykleitos  ; he  may  have  lived 
to  extreme  old  age,  and  for  all  we  know  he  may  have  been  working  up  to  the  end 
of  the  fifth  century.  None  of  the  works,  however,  known  to  be  undoubtedly  by  him  can 
be  dated  later  than  B.C.  420.  The  Zeus  Meilichios,  which,  according  to  an  anecdote 
in  Pausanias  (ii.  20,  1),  should  be  dated  after  418,  is  really  not  a dated  work  at  all,  for 
the  anecdote  is  only  an  explanation  of  the  name  Meilichios,  and  therefore  has  no 
chronological  value.1  It  is  not  altogether  impossible  that  the  tripod  with  the  figure 
of  Aphrodite  consecrated  at  Amyklai  after  the  battle  of  Aigospotamoi  (b.C.  405)  was 
a work  of  the  elder  Polykleitos,  though  it  is  highly  improbable  ; for  as  Polykleitos 
passed  on  to  his  pupils  the  work  on  the  more  splendid  votive  offerings,  put  up  in 
Delphi  after  the  same  battle,  he  would  hardly  have  undertaken  a comparatively 
unimportant  commission  for  obscure  Amyklai.  It  is  more  likely  that  the  tripod  was 
by  the  younger  Polykleitos.2 

A number  of  bases  inscribed  with  the  name  Polykleitos  and  belonging  to  statues 
of  athletes  have  been  found  in  Olympia  ; but  it  is  by  no  means  always  easy  to 
decide  to  which  of  the  two  artists  each  basis  should  be  ascribed.  The  basis  of  the 
Kyniskos  has  undoubtedly  been  correctly  assigned  to  the  elder  artist  (Lowy,  I.  G.  B. 
50).  It  is  not  so  much  the  archaic  character  of  the  writing  that  proves  this,  for 
Arkadia  was  singularly  conservative  in  this  respect,3  as  the  way  in  which  the  words 
are  distributed  around  the  upper  surface  of  the  base.  Next  comes  the  basis  of  the 
Pythokles  (Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  91)  on  which  the  Argive  Lambda  occurs.  Now  on  the 
well-known  Polystrata  relief  from  Argos — a piece  of  sculpture  which  from  its  style 
should  be  dated  before  rather  than  after  the  Peloponnesian  War4 — this  same  Argive 
Lambda  appears  together  with  the  Ionic  H.  Thus  it  is  safe  to  date  the  Pythokles 
as  early  as  430,  since  the  Argive  alphabet  was  falling  into  disuse  at  a still  earlier 
period.  The  basis  of  the  Xenokles  (Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  90)  follows  closely  upon  those  just 
mentioned,  for,  though  the  inscription  is  entirely  Ionic,  there  are  still  all  sorts  of  archaic 
elements  about  it.  It  should  probably  be  dated  about  420  ; for,  as  Ionic  letters  were 
already  being  introduced  into  Argos  even  before  the  Peloponnesian  War,  it  is  quite 
likely  that  by  420  the  Ionic  alphabet  was  fully  established.  Both  the  Pythokles 
and  the  Xenokles  may  therefore  be  ascribed  to  the  elder  Polykleitos.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Aristion  inscription  (/.  G.  B.  92)  has  a totally  different  character;5 6 

1 Cf.  Robert,  Arch.  Marc  hen,  p.  102. 

2 The  fact  that  the  signatures  of  Polykleitos  and  of  Lysippos  (Lowy,  7.  G.  B.  No.  93.  See  also  Robert,  Arch. 
Mdrchen,  p.  103^.,  and  E.  Preuner  in  Bonner  Studien , p.  217  set/.)  appear  side  by  side  cut  in  identical  characters 
on  one  block  of  stone  (found  at  Thebes)  which  supported  two  statues  by  these  two  artists,  has  given  rise  to  the 
theory  that  this  younger  Polykleitos  was  a contemporary  of  Lysippos.  But  the  character  of  the  epigraphy  shows 
that  the  Theban  basis  belongs  to  the  period  succeeding  316,  when  the  city  was  rebuilt  after  its  destruction  by 
Alexander.  It  is  evident  that,  as  Preuner  ( loc . cit.  p.  220)  has  already  hinted,  two  statues  which  were  originally 
unconnected  were  now  set  up  anew  side  by  side  and  inscribed  afresh.  There  are  many  examples  of  such  renewals 
of  artists’  signatures.  The  basis  is  therefore  no  guide  for  recovering  the  date  of  the  younger  Polykleitos,  and  all 
the  theories  lately  advanced  by  Robert  {loc.  cit. ) become  untenable.  Rather  must  we  admit  that  works  handed 
down  with  the  name  Polykleitos  and  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  may  just  as  well  be  by  the  elder  as 
by  the  younger  artist.  The  view  propounded  above  accounts  for  the  Boeotian  form  iirhenrei'  that  occurs  on  the 
basis.  I note  that  in  the  latest  publication  of  the  inscriptions  in  C.  I.  Gr.  Septentr.  i.  2532,  2533,  Dittenberger 
dates  them  on  epigraphical  grounds  after  316.  His  further  improbable  conclusion,  that  the  Polykleitos  named 
here  is  an  unknown  artist,  the  third  of  the  name,  need  not  be  discussed  after  what  has  been  said  above. 

3 See  Kirchhoff,  Studien , 4th  ed.  p.  1 59- 

4 This  is  also  the  opinion  given  in  the  Beschr.  d.  ant.  Skulpt.  in  Berlin,  No.  682,  where  however  the  illustra- 
tion reproduces  the  inscription  incorrectly  with  an  E instead  of  the  II  which  is  clearly  visible  on  the  stone  in  the 
av60r/K€.  Kirchhoff  ( Studien , 4th  ed.  p.  too)  assumed  that  the  relief  belonged  to  the  period  after  the  war,  on  the 

ground  of  the  style,  but  it  is  just  this  that  points  to  an  earlier  date. 

6 It  is  also  carelessly  executed  and  not  deeply  graven. 


INSCRIBED  BASES 


it  belongs  evidently  to  the  fourth  century,  and  must  be  assigned  to  the  younger 
artist. 

Polykleitos  was  an  Argive.  Plato,  our  earliest  authority  in  the  matter,  calls  him 
’Apyeios  in  a dialogue  (the  Protagoras)  written  in  any  case  shortly  after  the  death  of 
the  artist.  To  Plato,  Argos  was  the  home  of  Polykleitos  in  the  same  sense  that 
Athens  was  that  of  Pheidias,  to  whom  he  applies  the  adjective  ’A 6r)valo<;  immedi- 
ately after  calling  Polykleitos  an  Argive.  He  is  evidently  citing  the  two  most 
celebrated  artists  and  leaders  of  the  two  schools1 2  most  in  renown  at  the  time  in 
which  the  dialogue  is  supposed  to  have  taken  place. 

In  the  Pythokles  inscription,  which,  as  we  saw,  there  is  good  reason  for  assigning 
to  the  elder  artist,  Polykleitos  expressly  calls  himself  ' Apyelo?.  It  is  true,  however,  that 
this  epithet  only  occurs  in  the  restored  inscription  of  the  first  century  B.C.,  and  it  is 
not  quite  certain  if  it  was  part  of  the  original.  The  other  Polykleitan  inscriptions 
mention  no  nationality,  probably  because  the  artist  was  so  famous  and  well  known 
at  Olympia.  The  younger  Polykleitos,  to  whom  the  Aristion  base  must  belong,  signs 
simply  UoAv/cAeiTos  eVoA/cre,  without  any  epithet.  He  does  this  probably  with 
intention,  for  it  was  not  to  his  interest  to  be  distinguished  from  his  famous  elder 
namesake,  who,  as  the  Xenokles  basis  shows,  signed  his  later  works  in  this  simple 
manner.  Pausanias  in  various  passages  calls  both  elder  and  younger  Polykleitos 
simply  ’Apyelos.  Moreover,  Naukydes,  whom  Pausanias  calls  the  brother  of 
Polykleitos,  meaning  of  course  the  younger,  is  also  ’Apyet'o?,  as  is  proved  by  Pausanias 
(vi.  i,  3) 2 and  by  his  own  signature  on  a basis  at  Athens.  It  is  only  the  third  brother, 
Daidalos,  who  in  an  inscription  calls  himself  a Sikyonian  (Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  89),  as  he 
is  also  styled  by  Pausanias  (vi.  2,  8,  etc.)  He  evidently  migrated  to  Sikyon.  From 
Sikyon  also  came  two  of  the  artists  employed  on  the  great  Delphic  votive  offering — 
Kanachos,  a pupil  of  Polykleitos,  and  Alypos,  a pupil  of  Naukydes.  Among  other 
later  members  of  the  Polykleitan  school  we  must  also  reckon  Kleon  of  Sikyon, 
who  belongs  to  the  fourth  century.  These  facts  seem  to  show  that  a branch  of  the 
Polykleitan  school  in  Argos  was  established  in  Sikyon,3  probably  by  Daidalos,  about 
the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  In  the  fourth  century  this  Sikyonian  offshoot  gradually 
overshadowed  the  parent  school,  and  Lysippos,  its  greatest  outcome,  eventually  cast 
Argos  and  her  artists  completely  into  the  shade.  Its  school  of  painting  in  the  fourth 
century  would  in  itself  have  made  Sikyon  a leading  art-centre  ; but  in  the  fifth  matters 
had  been  very  different,  for  sculpture  was  then  in  the  hands  of  Aristokles  and  his 
pupils,  who  were  absolutely  insignificant  as  compared  to  the  Argive  school  founded 
by  Hagelaidas  and  developed  by  Polykleitos.  The  assertion,  found  only  in  Pliny 
(xxxiv.  55),  that  Polykleitos  was  a native  of  Sikyon,  must  in  all  probability  be  due 
to  that  same  historian  of  art  whose  Lysippian  and  Sikyonian  bias  can  be  so  clearly 
detected  at  various  points  of  Pliny’s  borrowed  narrative  (cf.  supra , p.  171  seq.)  He 
was  guilty  of  a sort  of  anachronism  in  transferring  Polykleitos  to  Sikyon.  There  is 
however  some  excuse  for  his  error  in  the  later  migration  of  the  Polykleitan  school 
to  Sikyon,  and  in  the  eventual  exclusive  leadership  exerted  by  the  Sikyonian  school 
in  the  Peloponnesos.4 

1 This  passage  does  not  necessarily  imply  (as  Robert  assumes,  Arch.  Miirchen,  p.  101)  that  Polykleitos  was 
resident  in  Athens. 

2 The  corrupt  Mi iOwvos  (Paus.  ii.  22,  7)  must  for  the  present  remain  a mystery.  Robert’s  last  suggestion, 
vta-repos  ( Hermes , 1888,  429),  is  based  on  his  untenable  hypothesis  concerning  the  family  of  Patrokles  ( Arch . 
Miirchen,  p.  107). 

3 Cf.  also  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzitngsber.  1880,  p.  473.  Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  p.  67,  No.  86. 

4 It  seems  to  me  better  to  set  aside  the  information  of  Pliny  than  to  try  to  combine  it  with  the  ascertained  fact 

G G 


226 


POLYKLEITOS 


Polykleitos  was  the  head  of  a large  school,  and  in  his  actual  family  were  many 
artists,  though  his  sons,  according  to  Plato,1  cannot  have  attained  to  any  great 
distinction.  It  is  likely,  though  not  actually  proved,  that  the  younger  Polykleitos 
was  related  to  the  elder.  As  he  was  brother  to  Naukydes  and  Daidalos,  he  must 
have  been  a son  of  Patrokles.  Now  the  facts,  we  know,  fit  together  best  if  we  regard 
Patrokles  as  a somewhat  younger  brother  of  Polykleitos,  so  that  the  younger  Poly- 
kleitos,  together  with  Naukydes  and  Daidalos,  would  be  nephews  of  the  elder. 

However  much  Polykleitos  may  have  been — as  he  indubitably  was — the  domin- 
ating personality  in  his  circle,  we  must  yet  allow  for  the  possibility  that  Patrokles 
may  have  kept  at  his  side  a certain  independent  style  of  his  own,  which  he  be- 
queathed to  his  sons.  At  any  rate  Naukydes  and  Daidalos,  who  mention  their 
father  in  their  inscriptions,  very  probably  do  so  because  he  had  been  an  artist  of 
merit.  The  monuments  will  throw  further  light  on  this  point. 


II.  The  Doryphoros. 

The  Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos  has  been  longer  and  better  known  than  any 
other  statue  by  this  artist.  It  has,  however,  not  yet  been  subjected  to  an  exhaustive 
analysis  based  on  a careful  comparison  of  all  its  numerous  replicas,  nor  has  its  great 
significance  in  the  history  of  art  been  determined  by  reference  to  all  other  monuments. 
Though  I am  not  in  a position  to  undertake  this  task,  a few  modest  contributions  may 
yet  be  offered  here. 

We  have  already  assigned  this  work  to  the  period  circa  450 — 440 — the  very 
time  when  Phcidias  produced  his  Parthenos.  Now  the  rise  of  Polykleitos  in  Argos 
marked  no  less  an  epoch  than  that  of  Phcidias  in  Athens  ; the  Doryphoros  is  as 
decided  an  advance  on  its  predecessors  as  the  Lcmnia  and  the  Parthenos  are  on 
theirs. 

The  Doryphoros  may  be  compared  with  two  works  dating  circa  B.C.  460,  which 
belong  to  the  generation  of  Argive  art  immediately  preceding  Polykleitos.  The  one 
is  the  Munich  Zeus  already  described  ; the  other,  the  little  bronze  athlete  from  the 
Argolis  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum.2  In  the  Zeus,  the  walking  motive  is  already 
introduced,  so  that  Polykleitos  found  it  ready  to  hand  ; some  attempt  is  also  made  to 
represent  the  muscles  and  to  indicate  the  veins.  There  is  still,  however,  a wide  gulf 
between  this  statue  and  the  Doryphoros.  The  attitude  is  stiff  and  angular,  and  there 
are  evidences  throughout  to  show  that  the  old  canon  of  Hagelaidas  has  not  been 
superseded  : the  shoulders  are  too  wide,  the  hips  too  narrow,  and  the  stomach  flat 
and  wooden.  No  attempt  is  made  to  show  the  effect  produced  on  the  muscles 

that  Polykleitos  was  an  Argive,  by  means  of  such  conjectures  as — that  Polykleitos  was  made  a citizen  of  Argos 
after  his  gold  and  ivory  Plera  had  been  set  up  (Loschcke,  Arch.  Ztg.  1878,  p.  11),  a theory  on  which  Robert 
{Arch.  Marchen,  p.  101)  builds  further  improbable  conjectures. 

1 ouSev  7 Tpos  rbv  irarepa  eifft.  Plato  would  certainly  not  have  said  this,  if  at  that  time  any  sons  of  Polykleitos 
had  been  distinguished  artists.  The  son  of  Polykleitos  whom  Lowy  conjectures  in  the  inscription  I.G.B.  89  is 
quite  problematic.  So  too  is  the  conjecture  of  Robert  {Arch.  Marchen,  p.  107)  that  a Patrokles  who  was 
employed  B.  c.  404  on  the  Delphic  votive  offerings  was  the  son  of  Polykleitos,  and  to  be  distinguished 
accordingly  from  the  elder  Patrokles.  This  is  quite  unnecessary,  for  even  were  Patrokles  the  father  of  Naukydes 
and  Daidalos  he  could  quite  well  have  been  working  after  B. c.  404. 

2 50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  1S90,  ‘ Eine  argivische  Bronze,'  Taf.  i.  The  provenance  of  this  bronze, 
Ligurio  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Epidauros,  has  been  certified  to  me  in  the  most  reliable  manner.  Frohner’s 
statement  {Coll.  Tyskiewicz,  text  to  PI.  13)  that  it  was  found  at  Olympia  is  quite  unwarranted  (cf.  Berl , 
Phil.  Woch.  1894,  p.  1140). 


THE  DORYPHOROS 


227 


between  breast  and  hip  by  the  position  of  the  left  leg,  and  the  lowering  of  the  left 
shoulder  ; a treatment  that  practically  makes  no  sort  of  distinction  between  the  two 
sides  of  the  trunk  when  the  body  is  in  motion  cannot  be  true  to  nature.  In  various 
other  points  we  see  signs  of  archaic  treatment  ; the  hair,  for  instance,  lacks  variety 
and  delicacy,  and  the  fillet  encircles  the  head  in  an  archaic,  lifeless  manner.  The 
bronze  athlete,  on  the  other  hand,  is  much  less  stiff  and  angular  ; the  shoulders  are 
no  longer  too  broad,  and  the  hips,  like  those  of  the  Doryphoros,  are  fuller;1  the 
abdomen  is  rounder  and  more  natural,  and  the  back  is  really  excellently  modelled. 
The  old  canon  is,  however,  closely  adhered  to  in  the  pose  of  the  figure  and  in  the 
archaic  treatment  of  the  hair.2 

These  works  form  the  foundation  on  which  arose  the  harmonious  conception  of 
the  Doryphoros.  In  this  marvel  of  proportion  all  stiffness  disappears,  and  every 
detail  of  attitude  and  movement  produced  by  the  momentary  pause  on  one  leg  while 
walking  is  rendered  with  truth  and  accuracy.  The  artist  has  overcome  that  crux  of 
former  times,  the  rendering  of  the  muscles  between  breast  and  hip  on  the  side  of  the 
leg  that  carries  the  weight  of  the  statue.  The  powerful  muscles  are  developed 
equally  all  over  the  body  without  any  undue  exaggeration  of  particular  parts,  and  all 
the  principal  veins  are  indicated.  The  formation  of  the  abdomen  is  not  inferior  to 
that  of  any  other  part  ; it  is  in  its  way  quite  as  true  as  that  of  the  breast  ; the  fond- 
ness for  large  plane  surfaces  with  clearly  defined  edges — in  a word,  the  very  quality 
which,  by  comparison  with  nature,  produces  a highly  conventional  effect  in  the  breast 
and  abdomen  of  the  Doryphoros — was  universal  in  Greek  art  up  to  the  time  of 
Praxiteles  and  Skopas,  when  a rounder  and  more  natural  method  was  introduced. 
The  carefully  balanced  proportions  of  the  Doryphoros  show  at  a glance  how  far  it 
surpasses  its  predecessors  ; and  this  superiority  can  be  more  accurately  estimated  by 
the  help  of  measurements.3  The  head  too,  with  its  flat,  almost  angular  contour,  is 
noticeable  as  a characteristic  innovation  of  Polykleitos.  The  hair  is  no  longer  in 
any  way  archaic,  though  it  lies  close  to  the  skull  and  is  only  faintly  modelled  ; 
the  attempt  at  realism  in  its  superimposed  layers  is  particularly  noteworthy  and 
original.  The  symmetrical  parting  over  the  brow  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the 
harmony  and  measured  proportion  that  governs  the  whole  figure  ; it  may  almost 
be  said  that  the  desire  for  regularity  is  excessive.  Apart  from  the  walking  motive, 
the  actual  pose  differs  from  the  old  Argive  canon  in  two  points.  The  one  is  purely 
external,  and  consists  in  making  the  figure  rest  on  the  right  leg,  instead  of  on  the 
left,  as  was  the  case  with  all  the  earlier  artists,  including  the  immediate  predecessors 
of  Polykleitos.  The  other  difference  is  more  essential,  for  it  involves  a complete 
reversion  of  an  old  arrangement  whereby  the  arm  on  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg 
was  bent  at  the  elbow  and  stretched  out,  while  the  other  arm  hung  loosely  down 
on  the  side  of  the  free  leg.  Thus  the  body  fell  into  two  separate  halves,  the  one 
absorbing  all  the  tension  and  movement,  the  other  being  left  in  complete  relaxation. 
Now  in  such  cases  the  introduction  of  the  walking  motive  only  tended,  as  we 
noted  in  the  Munich  Zeus,  to  emphasize  disagreeably  this  lack  of  balance. 
Polykleitos,  by  simply  reversing  the  position  of  the  arms  prescribed  by  the  old 
canon,  restored  the  necessary  balance  between  the  two  halves  of  the  body,  and 
produced  moreover  a great  effect  by  means  of  the  crossing  lines  of  the  upper  and 
lower  extremities.  In  his  statues  therefore  the  inactive  arm  hangs  down  on  the  side 

1 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsfirogr.  p.  142  seq. 

- The  omission  of  the  pubes  is  also  a sign  of  the  old  canon. 

3 Cf.  50th  Berl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  142  seq. 


228 


POLYKLEITOS 


of  the  supporting  leg  which  is  in  full  muscular  action,  where  it  harmonizes  with  the 
curving  outline  infinitely  better  than  it  did  with  the  free  leg,  while  the  other  arm, 
which  is  stretched  out  and  holds  some  attribute  1 — in  this  case  a spear — is  of  agreeable 
effect  on  the  same  side  as  the  leg  which  is  carelessly  drawn  back.  In  this  manner 
activity  and  relaxation  are  equally  distributed  between  the  two  sides  of  the  body. 

The  harmony  of  the  whole  is  further  heightened  by  the  position  of  the  head, 
which,  following  the  old  canon,  is  turned  to  the  side  on  which  the  weight  is  thrown  ; 
it  is  not  bent  forward,  but  is  set  fairly  straight.2  The  expression  of  the  face  is 
resolute  and  determined,  but  not  very  animated  : it  has  however  none  of  the  heaviness 
and  dulness  that  is  so  universal  in  the  heads  of  the  old  type. 

The  word  ‘ Doryphoros,’  as  we  saw  before  when  discussing  the  statue  of  that 

name  by  Kresilas,3  is  merely  a vague  term  borrowed  from  the  art  jargon  of  a late 

period.  Literally  the  name  was  given  to  ! an  attendant  bearing  a lance,’  and  was 
not  at  all  applicable  to  our  statue,  which  not  only  does  not  represent  a servant, 

but  in  its  original  form,  as  we  learn  from  a copy  on  a Berlin  gem,  carried  a short 

spear  or  javelin.4  The  original  Doryphoros  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  the  statue 
of  an  Olympic  victor,  probably  of  a pentathlete  with  his  javelin.  It  must  have  been 
first  set  up  in  Argos,  as  we  find  it  adopted  there  for  a figure  on  a heroic  relief.5 

One  proof  that  it  is  the  statue  of  an  athlete  lies  in  the  fact  that  a marble  copy 
of  the  Doryphoros  has  been  discovered  in  the  Altis  of  Olympia,6  for  a statue  of  this 
kind  found  on  this  site  must  also  necessarily  be  that  of  an  Olympic  victor.  The 
material,  like  that  of  all  later  statues  at  Olympia,  is  Pentelic  marble.  It  was  no 
doubt  dedicated  by  an  athlete  of  some  later  period,  who  preferred  a copy  of  the 
famous  figure  of  the  Doryphoros  to  an  original  statue.  Unfortunately  only  the  torso 
survives,  and  that  in  a damaged  condition.  The  execution,  though  rather  mechanical, 
is  on  the  whole  less  hard  than  in  most  of  the  Italian  replicas.  The  copy  probably 
belongs  to  the  first  century  B.C.  or  A. I). 

There  are  many  other  replicas  of  the  torso  of  the  Doryphoros  in  different 
museums.7 8  Two  of  these  are  so  superior  to  the  others  in  execution  that  they  have  a 
real  aesthetic  significance.  The  first,  which  is  in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence,  is  executed  in 
green  basalt,  and  produces  the  effect  of  a bronze  covered  with  an  exquisite  patina.- 
It  is  a fine  bit  of  careful  workmanship.9  The  other  torso,  of  equally  good  workman- 
ship, is  the  Pourtales  torso  at  Berlin.10  It  is  interesting  to  notice  in  it  the  veins  on  the 
abdomen.  As  they  do  not  occur  in  other  replicas,  I cannot  feel  certain  that  they 

1 In  the  excellent  Florence  copy  [Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  50,  2)  the  right  arm  is  (correctly)  stretched  horizontally 
forward. 

2 Michaelis  points  out  (Anna//,  1878,  p.  9)  that  in  the  Naples  copy  the  head  is  rather  too  upright,  and  that 
the  other  replicas  are  more  correct  in  this  respect. 

3 Cf.  p.  163  seq. 

4 On  the  relief  (A/h.  Mitth.  1878,  Taf.  13)  a short  iavelin  appears,  not  a long  8 opv. 

0 A/h.  Mitth.  1878,  Taf.  13.  Collignon’s  view  (Hist,  de  la  Sculpt,  i.  49°))  that  the  Doryphoros  was  a 
decorative  statue  from  one  of  the  gymnasia  at  Argos,  involves  an  anachronism,  for  such  purely  decorative  statues 
were  not  in  vogue  till  much  later. 

6 Still  unpublished,  and  apparently  unnoticed. 

7 Thus  in  Mus.  Chiaramonti,  No.  293  ; ibid,  in  reduced  scale,  No.  484  ; both  unrestored.  Two  with 
wrong  restorations  in  Pal.  Giustiniani,  two  in  Pal.  Massimi  alle  colonne,  and  others.  One  in  Vienna  was  lately 
published  by  R.  von  Schneider,  Die  Erzstatue  vom  Helenenberge , 1893,  pp.  16,  17  ( Jahrb . d.  Kiinsth.  Samml.  d. 
Kaiserh.  Bd.  xv. ) 

8 No.  307.  Diitschke,  Uffiz.  535  ; Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverkauf,  Nos.  94,  95-  The  back  is  admiiably 
worked. 

9 This  is  the  only  replica  in  which  the  pubes  is  really  well  executed.  It  shows  that  Polykleitos  also  ananged 
the  curls  on  the  pubes  quite  symmetrically  from  the  middle  outwards  towards  the  two  sides. 

10  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  507. 


YOUNG  PAN 


229 


existed  in  the  original.  Quite  different  is  it  with  the  veins  on  the  extremities,  which 
appear  on  all  the  replicas,  and  which  were  already  usual  even  in  the  severe  style.  We 
shall  see,  however,  that  late  Polykleitan  art  certainly  represented  the  veins  of  the 
abdomen,  and  perhaps  the  copyist  got  the  idea  in  this  way  and  transferred  it  to 
the  Doryphoros. 

There  are  a considerable  number  of  heads  which  are  copies  of  the  Doryphoros.1 
The  one  which  gives  the  best  idea  of  the  original  is  evidently  the  bronze  bust  by 
Apollonios  at  Naples;2  the  carefulness  of  the  workmanship,  into  which  no  incon- 
gruous elements  have  been  introduced,  produces  a singular  impression  of  fidelity  ; 
the  hair  especially  seems  to  be  very  faithfully  copied.  In  comparison  to  this 
bronze  most  other  copies  appear  superficial,  and  allow  themselves  every  sort  of 
simplification  in  the  hair  ; the  proceeding  is  the  same  as  that  noted  in  the  case  of  the 
Myronian  Diskobolos.  In  the  main  features,  however,  such  as  the  division  of  the  hair 
over  the  brow,  all  the  copies  are  unanimous.  In  addition  to  the  marble  heads, 
there  is  a good  copy  made  of  the  same  green  basalt  as  the  Florentine  torso  ; it  is 
unfortunately  much  restored.3 

The  Doryphoros  and  the  ‘canon’  of  Polykleitos  were,  according  to  the  exact 
wording  of  our  tradition,  two  distinct  works,  yet  it  is  probable  that  the  same  statue 
has  been  handed  down  under  two  names  ; 4 both  appellations  are  moreover  equally 
inappropriate,  and  belong  to  a much  later  period.  When  Lysippos,  as  Cicero 
(Brutus,  86,  296)  tells  us,  called  the  Doryphoros  his  teacher,  he  must  have  referred  to 
the  canonical  figure  of  Polykleitos.  The  monuments  are  quite  in  favour  of  this  inter- 
pretation, for  they  prove  how  very  frequently  the  Doryphoros  was  used  as  a model. 

I shall  only  discuss  here  those  works  that  are  intimately  connected  with  the 
Doryphoros,  although  to  confine  oneself  to  these  is  to  gain  only  a very  partial  idea 
of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  statue.  It  is  quite  certain  that  a very  considerable 
influence  must  have  been  exercised  upon  subsequent  art  by  the  combination  exhibited 
in  the  Doryphoros  of  perfect  dignity  and  calm  with  the  walking  attitude,  yet  this 
influence  is  mostly  matter  of  conjecture,  and  can  only  be  definitely  pointed  to  in 
a very  few  cases. 

The  most  notable  figure  directly  derived  from  the  Doryphoros  is  a bronze  statu- 
ette in  Paris 5 representing  the  young  Pan.  Though  lacking  the  finishing  touches  of  the 
chisel,  it  is  an  exquisite  original  from  the  immediate  circle  of  Polykleitos.  I pointed 
out  some  years  ago  the  strong  affinities  which  this  bronze  offered  to  the  Doryphoros, 
not  only  in  the  motive  but  in  the  system  of  bodily  forms.  The  only  difference  is  that 
the  arms,  the  left  one  particularly,  are  not  so  close  to  the  body,0  and  that  the  left 
arm  is  more  bent  owing  to  the  substitution  of  a short  pedum  for  the  lance  ; yet  the 
fingers  of  this  hand  correspond  exactly  with  those  of  the  Doryphoros.  The  head  is 

1 So  in  Mus.  Chiaramonti,  on  a statue  to  which  it  does  not  belong. — A good  copy  in  the  Vatican,  also  on  a 
wrong  statue.  — In  the  Pal.  Valentini  (staircase)  on  a wrong  statue. — Inferior  copies  in  Museo  Torlonia,  469,  in 
the  Coll.  Barracco,  PI.  43,  43  a,  good  ; PI.  44,  indifferent;  in  the  Palazzo  Pitti  (Diitschke,  ii.  12),  in  the  Uffizi 
(downstairs),  in  the  Villa  Mattei  (Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverkauf  Nos.  1 1 6,  1 1 7),  and  others.  Also,  Notizie 
degli  Scavi,  1879,  i.  1 ; Cavaceppi,  Kacco/ta,  ii.  2. 

2 Friederichs-Wolters,  505.  The  clumsy  eyeballs  are  a modern  restoration.  (Cf.  p.  138,  note  4.) 

3 Guedeonow,  Ermitage,  Sculpt.  Ant.  No.  75,  called  ‘ Drusus  l'ancien.’ 

1 There  is  no  need  to  alter  Pliny  xxxiv.  55.  It  is  undoubtedly  correct  to  put  a comma  between  ptierum  und 
fecit , as  Detlefsen  does.  The  comment  on  the  Doryphoros  (which  belongs  to  that  on  the  Diadumenos)  and  the 
comment  on  the  canon  probably  come  from  quite  different  sources,  which  would  account  for  the  use  of 
different  names. 

5 Ath.  Mittli.  iii.  1878,  Taf.  12  (Furtwangler)  ; Babelon,  Cabinet  des  ant.  de  la  Biblioth.  Nat. 

K The  illustration  in  the  Ath.  Alitth.  is  from  a cast  in  which  the  right  arm  is  closer  to  the  body  than  it 
is  in  the  original. 


POLYKLE1TOS 


230 

also  entirely  Polykleitan  in  character,  although  the  fuller,  more  plastic  treatment  of  the 
hair  and  the  greater  softness  of  mouth  and  chin  point  to  its  being  a later  work.  The 
interval  between  them  however  need  not  have  been  very  great,  and  there  is  no  reason 
for  dating  this  bronze  later  than  the  fifth  century.  Though  no  one  is  likely  to  regard 
it  as  an  actual  work  of  Polykleitos,  it  can  be  assigned  almost  certainly  to  one  of 
his  pupils,  and  it  proves  that  within  the  school  the  Doryphoros  was  treated  as  a model, 
and  adapted  with  the  slightest  possible  alterations  to  youthful  figures  of  a quite 
different  order. 

No  other  monument  equals  this  in  importance  and  originality,  but  the  relief 
from  Argos1  may  be  taken  as  the  next  in  merit.  From  this  free  adaptation  of  the 
Doryphoros  to  an  heroic  subject  we  learn  how  highly  that  statue  must  have  been 
esteemed  in  Arqos  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  centurv.2  Passing  now  to 
marble  statues  of  the  Roman  period,  we  can  recognize  in  a statue  of  the  Villa 
Albani3  the  Doryphoros  transformed  into  a youthful  hero,  perhaps  an  Ares,  armed 
with  a sword.  In  design  and  bodily  structure  alike  it  follows  the  model  exactly, 
only  the  lance  being  here  replaced  by  the  sword.  The  head  is  unfortunately  lost. 
The  original  probably  belonged  to  the  Polykleitan  circle.  Two  bronze  statuettes, 
the  one  in  the  British  Museum,4  the  other  at  Geneva,5  are  based  on  the  Doryphoros, 
and  carry  a spear  in  the  left  hand  ; but  the  head  with  its  Corinthian  helmet  and  the 
structure  of  the  body  differ  from  the  model  in  their  rounder,  softer  treatment. 

A statue  of  Ilermes  in  the  Boboli  Gardens6  at  Idorence  follows  the  Doryphoros 
in  the  structure  of  the  head  and  body,  and,  but  for  the  right  arm,  also  in  motive  ; the 
head,  however,  is  rather  more  inclined.  The  right  arm  supports  a small  boy,  probably 
the  infant  Dionysos,  of  whom  only  one  tiny  foot  is  antique.  The  addition  of  an 
ordinary  Roman  chlamys  thrown  over  the  breast,7  and  of  wings  on  the  head, 
considerably  disfigures  the  original  Polykleitan  type.  The  workmanship  (the 
pupils  of  the  eyes  arc  carved  on  the  ball)  is  that  of  the  second  or  third  century  A.D. 
As  it  is  only  owing  to  the  Roman  additions  of  chlamys  and  of  wings  that  the 
Polykleitan  athlete  has  become  a Hermes,  and  as  the  child  on  the  arm  does  not  fit 
the  figure,  it  may  be  that  the  whole  statue  is  merely  a Roman  composition  or 
pasticcio.  However,  it  is  also  possible  that  the  original  was  a Polykleitan  Hermes, 
who,  of  course,  would  carry  the  kerykeion  as  his  sole  distinguishing  attribute.8 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  group  of  Hermes  and  the  infant  Dionysos  was  not  first 
introduced  into  statuary  by  Praxiteles,  for  we  know  the  composition  from  a Roman 
bronze  found  in  France,  copied  from  a work  that  was  not  only  pre-Praxitelean 
in  style  but  probably  actually  Peloponnesian.9 

1 Ath.  Mitth.  iii.  1S78,  Taf.  13,  p.  287  scq. 

2 This  date  (ibid.  289)  has  recently  been  confirmed  by  the  basis-relief  of  Bryaxis  ( B . C.  H.  1892,  PI.  3,  7), 
on  which  the  horses  are  modelled  in  a strikingly  similar  manner. 

3 No.  604.  Clarac,  S33  C,  2074  A.  Cf.  Flasch  in  Bull.  del!  Inst.  1873,  10  ; Michaelis,  Annali , 1878, 
9,  K. ; Ilelbig,  Fiihrer,  824;  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  p.  674;  Kalkmann,  Gesiclitsprop.  p.  53,  note  6. 
The  middle  of  the  sword  is  antique.  On  the  right  thigh  a puntello  has  been  planed  away,  which,  as  in  the 
Doryphoros,  was  for  the  support  of  the  forearm.  A piece  of  the  neck  is  restored,  and  the  head  is  probably  foreign. 

4 The  so-called  ‘Bunsen  Mars.’  The  right  arm  is  missing.  Workmanship  latish. 

B Geneva,  Musee  Fol.  1275.  The  head  with  the  hair  parted  in  front  is  nearer  to  the  Polykleitan  type 
than  the  London  bronze. 

6 Diitschke,  Zerstr.  Antiken  in  Florenz , 84  ; Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzetoerk.  Nos.  103 — 105.  Cast  in  the 
Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts.  The  head  is  certainly  genuine.  The  lower  part  of  the  left  wing  is  ancient. 

7 As  in  the  Myronian  Hermes  (see  p.  182  seq. ) 

8 The  suggestion  of  Overbeck  ( Gesch . d.  Plastik.  2nd  ed.  ii.  7),  that  the  group  is  derived  from  Kephisodotos, 
seems  to  be  quite  unwarranted. 

9 Revue  Archtlol.  1884,  vol.  iv.  PI.  4.  The  original  was  probably  a work  of  about  400  n.C.  This  is  shown 


THE  DORYPHOROS 


231 


A statue  of  Hermes  of  Roman  date  recently  discovered  at  Troezene  resembles 
the  Doryphoros,1  both  in  motive  and  in  the  bodily  forms.  The  god,  who  in  this 
case  wears  a chlamys  of  good  Greek  style,  leads  a ram  by  the  horn  with  his  right 
hand,  and  in  the  left  he  holds  the  herald’s  staff.  Although  the  head  with  its 
winged  petasos  is  not  purely  Polykleitan,  the  statue  must  be  referred  to  an 
original  of  the  school.  This  motive,  the  leading  of  a ram  by  the  horn,  recalls 
Pliny’s  mention  of  the  immolans  arietem  of  Naukydes,2  which  was  perhaps  similarly 
composed. 

A series  of  Polykleitan  heads  representing  Hermes  with  the  petasos  or  with 
wings  will  be  considered  later  in  connexion  with  another  type  of  Polykleitan 
Hermes  which  differs  in  pose. 

A list  of  torsos  must  however  be  given  here  which  follow  the  Doryphoros 
more  or  less  exactly  in  forms  and  attitude,  but  which  are  shown  by  the  chlamys,  or 
by  the  end  of  a cloak  thrown  over  the  left  shoulder,  to  be  either  representations  of 
Hermes,  or  perhaps  mere  portrait-statues.3  As  the  drapery  is  by  no  means  the  same 
in  all,  and  is  for  the  most  part  decidedly  late  in  its  treatment,  these  torsos  are 
interesting  only  as  showing  that  even  up  to  quite  late  times  the  Doryphoros  did  duty 
as  a model.  A well-preserved  and  interesting  statue  from  Carthage  has  recently  been 
acquired  by  the  Louvre  ; it  repeats  the  figure  and  pose  of  the  Doryphoros  with  the 
additions  of  a chlamys  over  the  left  shoulder  ; the  right  hand  hung  down,  holding  an 
attribute.  The  head  however  is  totally  different,  being  slightly  turned  to  the  left,  and 
of  the  ordinary  Dioscurus  type  with  the  pilos  ; a horse’s  head  below  serves  as  attribute. 
This  association  of  heterogeneous  elements  in  head  and  body  is  essentially  Roman.4 
Lastly,  in  a statue  at  Carlsruhc  a later  type  of  head  has  been  combined  with  the  body 
of  the  Doryphoros,  though  the  action  of  the  arms  has  been  reversed.5 

Passing  now  to  bronze  statuettes  of  later  date,  we  find  that  the  largest  and  most 
important  of  all  is  in  the  closest  possible  connexion  with  the  series  we  have  just 
considered.  This  is  the  well-known  Hermes  from  Fins  d’Annecy,0  at  present  to  my 
knowledge  in  the  possession  of  M.  Dutuit  at  Rouen.  For  all  the  delicacy  of  the 
workmanship,  this  charming  bronze,  which  was  once  gilt  all  over,  must  be  considered 
as  a Roman  work  of  the  Augustan  age.  The  finely  modelled  body  is  evidently 
inspired  by  the  Doryphoros  ; the  arms,  however,  are  too  short,  and,  just  as  in  the 

Carlsruhe  statue,  their  action  has  been  reversed.7  Other  variations  from  the  model 

betray  a late  and  imperfect  style.  The  head  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Dory- 

by  the  unnatural  rendering  of  the  child,  the  simple  flat  modelling  of  the  principal  figure,  the  attitude, 

recalling  a Peloponnesian  Hermes  type  which  rests  on  the  left  leg  (to  be  discussed  later),  and  finally  the  head 
with  the  parted  hair. 

1 B.  C.  H.  1892,  PL  2,  17  ; p.  165  seq.  (Legrand).  Poor  Roman  work:  not  an  exact  copy,  but  a free 
adaptation  of  a Polykleitan  type. 

2 The  current  identification  with  the  ‘ Phrixos’  on  the  Akropolis  is  quite  uncertain. 

3 (a)  Naples,  Mus.  Naz.  No.  6102  ; measurements  = those  of  the  Doryphoros:  portrait-head  foreign. — (/>) 
Villa  Albani,  596  : the  head  is  foreign,  and  appears  to  be  a replica  of  the  Ludovisi  Hernies  ; the  bodily  forms  are 
somewhat  softer. — (c)  Mus.  Torlonia,  343  : head,  left  forearm,  with  sword  and  right  arm,  are  modern. — Palazzo 
Valentini : restored  as  Pertinax. — (d)  Lateran,  No.  836  (Benndorf-Schone,  445) : puntello  for  the  right  arm  in  the 
usual  place,  yet  the  left  seems  to  have  been  raised. — (e)  Lower  torso  in  the  Vatican,  Belvedere,  No.  8 : puntello 
or  the  right  arm  in  the  usual  place  ; a cloak  hangs  down  behind  ; a horn  of  plenty  on  the  tree-stem  ; probably 
a portrait  in  the  character  of  Genius. 

4 Louvre,  No.  2735.  Colossal  statue  of  coarse  marble  much  weathered  ; good  Roman  work. 

Sketched  without  the  restorations  in  Arch.  Anz.  1890,  p.  4,  No.  6.  The  position  of  the  arms  is  fixed  by 
the  puntelli. 

*’  Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  50,  4 ; A nnali,  1878,  25  seq.  (Michaelis) ; Gazette  Archiol.  1876,  PI.  18.  Cf.  B.  C.  H. 
1892,  169.  I saw  the  original  in  1881. 

Ihey  are  cast  separately,  as  is  so  frequently  the  case  in  larger  bronzes. 


232 


POLYKLEITOS 


phoros,  but  here  and  there,  espe- 
cially at  the  back  of  the  head,  the 
Roman  artist  has  introduced  later 
elements  into  the  hair.  The 
statuette  probably  represented  a 
Roman  deity,  but  it  is  hard  to 
determine  which,  as  the  remains 
of  the  attribute  are  doubtful.1 
The  current  view  of  its  being  a 
copy  from  an  original  composition 
of  Polykleitos  (Michaelis  ranks  it 
as  third  along  with  the  Doryphoros 
and  the  Diadumcnos)  is  absolutely 
untenable.  This  figure  can  only 
be  correctly  appreciated  in  con- 
nexion with  later  adaptations  from 
the  Doryphoros,  and  it  certainly 
cannot  help  us  to  recover  the 
Hermes  of  Polykleitos. 

A much  - rubbed  Roman 
bronze  in  the  Louvre  shows  the 
Doryphoros  type  without  any 
addition  of  drapery,  but  marked 
as  Mercury  by  the  winged  feet.2 
Other  Roman  bronzes  unite  in 
a most  disturbing  manner  the 
Polykleitan  torso  with  a head  of 
the  ordinary  later  Hermes  type.3 

Very  common  are  the  Mer- 
cury bronzes  in  which  the  chlamys 
is  added  to  the  Polykleitan  body  : 
in  the  best  examples  it  is  arranged 
after  the  older  fashion,  so  as  to 
cover  the  entire  left  arm.  The 
finest  specimen  comes  from  Gaul, 

Fig.  93. — Bronze  statuette  in  British  Museum.  and  is  111  the  Llltish  MllSeUIll 

(Fig.  93).4  Both  head  and  body 
are  excellent,  though  not  wholly  Polykleitan.5  Still  better  in  style,  but  not  in  such 
good  preservation,  is  a figure  at  Copenhagen  found  at  Pompeii.1'  A similai  but 


1 It  might  possibly  be  the  end  of  a bow. 

2 Louvre,  Bronzes,  1031  : the  left  arm  is  missing,  the  right  is  lowered  ; the  head  still  shows  the  Polykleitan 
type. 

3 Paris,  Cab.  d.  Medailles,  Coll.  Janze,  81  : the  body  reproduces  with  fair  accuracy  the  forms  of  the  Dory- 
phoros ; veins  on  the  abdomen.  The  right  arm  is  missing.- — Similar  but  inferior  is  a bronze  in  Brunswick,  No. 
289,  with  prominent  muscles. — British  Museum,  R.P.K.  xlvi.  ; others  from  the  Thames  Arcluzologia,  vol.  xxviii. 
PI.  5. — Frohner,  Coll.  Griau , Bronzes  Ant.  933. 

4 Specimens  of  Ancient  Sculpture,  i.  33,  34;  Miiller-Wieseler,  Den/cm.  a.  K.  ii.  314-  Cf.  my  remarks  in 
Tahrb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Alterth.  fr.  im  Rheinl.  vol.  xc.  p.  58. 

8 The  pubes  less  good  than  the  hair.  Veins  on  the  abdomen  as  in  the  Pourtales  Doryphoros  torso.  The 
left  foot  less  drawn  back  than  in  the  Doryphoros. 

G Bronzes,  No.  14.  Pub.  by  Jul.  Lange,  Fremstilling  af  Menneskeskikkelsen  (Abh.  d.  Kopenh.  Akad.  1S92), 
p.  407,  fig.  62.  The  lowered  right  hand  is  empty  ; the  left  evidently  held  the  kerykeion, 


THE  DORYPHOROS 


233 


inferior  one  belongs  to  Sir  Francis  Cook 
at  Richmond,1  a fourth  is  in  Paris.2 
None  of  these  statuettes  can  claim  to 
be  an  actual  copy  of  a Hermes  by  Poly- 
klcitos.3  They  all  vary  in  detail,  and 
must  be  regarded  as  Roman  creations, 
founded  on  the  Doryphoros,  and  borrow- 
ing the  chlamys  from  some  other  fifth- 
century  model. 

Among  these  figures  also  are  some 
in  which  the  Polykleitan  head  is  replaced 
by  that  of  a later  type  of  Hermes,4  while 
others  again  show  the  body  of  the 
Doryphoros  draped  in  a chlamys  hang- 
ing from  the  shoulders  in  a point  in 
front.5  We  have  an  interesting  work 
of  this  class  in  a bronze  Mercury  of 
the  Oppermann  collection  in  Paris  (Fig. 

94).°  Here  a fine  chlamys  executed  in 
the  style  of  the  fifth  century  covers  the 
whole  body  to  the  knee.  The  parted 
hair  points  to  a Polykleitan  inspiration, 
but  the  Doryphoros  attitude  is  consider- 
ably modified  by  the  increased  inclina- 
tion of  the  head  and  right  shoulder,  and 
by  the  extension  of  the  right  arm.  These 
changes  give  a softer,  sweeter  effect  to 
the  whole  figure.  It  need  not  surprise 
us  to  find  the  Doryphoros  so  often 
adapted  to  representations  of  Hermes 
in  Roman  times,  for  copies  of  this  statue 
were  placed  in  the  various  palaestrae 
and  gymnasia,7  which  were  all  conse-  Fig.  94.— Mercury,  Coll.  Oppermann  (Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris). 

crated  to  Hermes. 

All  this  is  interesting,  as  showing  the  vast  influence  exercised  by  one  creation  01 
Polykleitos  ; but  it  has  added  nothing  to  our  knowledge  of  the  artist  himself,  since  not 
one  of  the  works  described  can  be  definitely  referred  to  any  actual  work  of  his.  The 


] Height,  o'  1 5.  The  left  forearm  raised,  the  left  hand  held  the  kerykeion  ; remains  of  a purse  in  the  lowered 
right  hand.  The  left  foot  was  slightly  drawn  back.  Polykleitan  characteristics  in  the  head  much  weakened. 
Rich  sandals ; eyes  and  nipples  of  silver. 

2 Cab.  d.  Medailles,  3351.  Head  much  defaced,  with  traces  of  Polykleitan  type.  The  lowered  right  hand 
empty,  the  extended  left  hand  probably  held  the  kerykeion. 

3 Cf.  Treu,  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  57. 

4 Paris,  Cab.  d.  Medailles,  3350. — Clarac,  666  D,  1512  F. 

5 Sacken,  Bronzen  in  Wien,  Taf.  10,  4. 

6 Paris,  Cab.  d.  Medailles,  Coll.  Oppermann.  Height,  about  o'20.  The  left  hand  evidently  held  the  kery* 
keion  ; the  right  has  a hole,  possibly  for  the  purse.  To  judge  by  the  colour  of  the  metal,  the  figure  seems  to 
be  from  Gaul. 

7 The  Naples  copy  comes  from  the  Palaestra  of  Pompeii.  Cf.  Nissen,  Pompej.  Studien,  p.  166.  As  the 
figure  carried  a lance,  it  cannot  possibly  be  a Hermes.  But  the  Ephebe  statues  with  the  lance,  which  according  to 
Pliny  (xxxiv.  18)  were  called  Achilleae,  and  were  set  up  in  the  gymnasia,  were  very  likely  for  the  most  part  copies 
of  the  popular  Doryphoros  by  Polykleitos. 


FI  I I 


234 


POLYKLEITOS 


assumption  that  Polyklcitos  often  repeated  himself  by  adapting  the  Doryphoros  type 
to  other  statues  is  certainly  not  supported  by  the  monuments  themselves. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  study  of  the  Doryphoros  will  enable  us  to  point  among 
our  copies  to  other  original  creations  by  Polykleitos.  There  is,  for  instance,  a type  of 
head  (Fig.  95)  so  like  the  Doryphoros  that  it  is  often  confused  with  it,  though  it  differs 


Fig.  95. — Head  of  Herakles.  From  Herculaneum  (Naples). 

in  a distinct  detail,  i.e.  in  the  rolled  fillet  round  the  head,  and  also  in  size,  being  only 
life-size,  while  the  Doryphoros  is  rather  above.  The  rolled  fillet  is  a well-known 
attribute  of  Herakles,  and  as  at  any  rate  one  replica  of  the  head  in  question  shows  an 
evident  attempt  to  give  the  characteristics  of  that  hero  1 (though  it  must  be  admitted 

1 The  head  from  Herculaneum  in  Naples,  Comparetti  de  Petra,  Villa  Ercol.  Tav.  21,  3 (our  Fig.  95).  B. 
Graf  {Rom.  Mitih.  1889,  pp.  215.  202  sqq. ) had  already  conjectured  a Polykleitan  Herakles.  He  also  mentions 


HERAKLES 


235 


that  in  so  doing  the  artist  abandoned  the  original  and  introduced  traits  belonging 
to  a later  type),  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  head  actually  represents  Herakles. 
In  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  the  fact  that  almost  all  the  replicas  known  to  me 
originally  belonged  to  terminal  busts,  which  explains  why  so  many  heads  and  no 
statues  belonging  to  them  have  been  found  ; for  it  was  precisely  terms  of  Herakles 
that  were  in  great  demand  for  palaestrae  and  gymnasia.  The  Skopasian  Herakles 
likewise  is  found  almost  exclusively  in  the  term-shape.  Both  types  appear  to  have 


Fig.  96. — Head  of  Herakles.  From  the  collection  at  Broadlands  (Hampshire). 


been  very  popular  for  this  purpose,  and  in  both  the  inclination  of  the  head  varies  from 
right  to  left,1  though  the  former  is  more  common  ; it  is  very  slight  either  way,  and  in 
the  original  the  head  was  probably  set  straight. 

two  replicas — viz.  Lateran,  896  = Bennd.-Schone,  491,  and  Museo  Chiaramonti,  No.  139  (Helbig,  Museums,  69). 
In  the  second  the  neck  is  antique,  the  bust  modern.  The  head  might  have  belonged  to  a statue  ; the  ends 
of  the  fillet  are  missing.  The  work  is  sketchy  and  poor.  Other  replicas  are  : A term  at  Broadlands  (Fig.  96  ; 
Michaelis,  Anc.  Sc.  p.  220,  No.  10).  The  hair  is  worked  in  much  more  detail  than  in  the  other  copies  named 
above. — In  Berlin,  No.  478,  mediocre  copy  ; probably  intended  for  insertion  into  a term. — The  janiform  term, 
Berlin,  No.  477,  may  be  counted  among  the  good  copies.  Slight  turn  to  the  left.  Hair  very  carefully  rendered,  as  in 
the  Broadlands  example,  much  better  than  the  Chiaramonti  copy. —A  replica  in  Dresden,  for  insertion  in  a term 
( Zug . Verz.  1106)  from  Rome.  The  length  of  face  in  five  copies  is  o'iS2 — o'l85  (in  the  Doryphoros,  o'200 — 
o’204),  width  of  face  at  the  cheek-bones  o'H3  (in  the  Doryphoros,  OT56). 

1 So  Chiaramonti,  139  ; Berlin,  477. 


236 


POLYKLEITOS 


This  Polykleitan  Herakles  may  perhaps  be  copied  from  the  statue  in  Rome 
mentioned  by  Pliny  (xxxiv.  56) x;  unfortunately  all  the  replicas  are  very  mediocre. 
The  term  in  Naples  is  undoubtedly  the  most  characteristic  of  Herakles,  and  has  least 
in  common  with  the  Doryphoros.  The  chin  and  lips  are  unusually  full  and  powerful, 
and  the  nostrils  are  distended.  The  widely  opened  eyes  appear  to  project  a little,  the 
hair  of  the  eyebrows  is  indicated,  and  two  deep  furrows  rise  from  the  root  of  the  nose. 
In  the  other  replicas  all  these  details  are  lost  ; their  features  assimilate  to  those  of  the 
Doryphoros  to  the  extent  of  appearing  even  calmer  and  more  impassive.  The  careless 
treatment  of  the  hair  in  the  Naples  replica  shows,  however,  that  it  is  not  accurate  in 
matters  of  detail  ; the  intention  of  satisfying  the  common  ideal  of  Herakles  by  just 
giving  a look  of  concentrated  strength  to  the  face  is  so  evident  that  we  must  be 
cautious  how  far  we  trust  this  head  in  those  points  where  it  contradicts  the  other 
replicas,  in  which  the  hair  at  any  rate  is  much  more  accurately  modelled. 

The  resemblance  between  the  Polykleitan  Herakles  head  and  the  Doryphoros  is, 
as  remarked  before,  very  great.  The  stylistic  treatment  of  the  hair  is  the  same  ; yet 
a close  examination  brings  differences  also  to  light.  There  is  less  anxious  symmetry 
in  the  Herakles  ; the  hair  on  the  top  of  the  head  is  treated  in  broader,  looser  masses, 
and  the  locks  towards  the  ends  are  accordingly  all  the  richer.  The  little  wisps  on 
either  side  over  the  middle  of  the  forehead  are  not  symmetrical  as  in  the  Doryphoros.2 
It  is  not  till  we  come  to  the  next  two  larger  meshes  of  hair  with  their  points  turned 
inwards  (these  meshes  are  a chief  sign  by  which  our  head  can  be  distinguished  from 
the  Doryphoros)  that  we  find  approximate  symmetry.  The  little  curls  in  front 
of  and  behind  the  ears 3 are  more  varied  in  form  and  movement  than  they  are 
in  the  Doryphoros.  Further,  the  modelling  of  the  forehead  is  somewhat  more 
accentuated,  while  the  lower  part  of  the  face  produces  a more  delicate  effect. 
From  all  these  remarks  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Herakles  is  later  than  the 
Doryphoros. 

The  rolled  fillet  in  the  hair,  shown  in  all  the  replicas,  and  which  is  sometimes 
decorated  with  flowers,  must  have  belonged  to  the  original,  but  without  the  long  ends 
falling  on  the  breast ; these  arc  absent  from  some  copies,  and  vary  in  the  others, 
and  seem  to  have  been  introduced  by  the  copyists  who  made  the  terminal  busts. 
There  are  other  instances  of  Herakles  wearing  the  rolled  fillet,  eg.  in  the  beautiful 
statue  of  the  Museo  Chiaramonti  ( infra , Figs.  146,  147),  where  he  is  represented 
carrying  the  infant  Telephos  on  his  arm.  It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  an  external 
means  of  characterizing  the  hero.  It  is  no  simple  victor’s  fillet ; it  seems  borrowed 
from  the  symposion,  and  distinguishes  the  glorified  hero,  rejoicing  in  the  heavenly 
banquet.  Of  inner  characterization  by  means  of  an  individual  form  of  head  there  is 
scarcely  a trace,  if  we  leave  out  of  account  the  additions  made  by  the  Naples  copyist. 
The  head  is  of  pure  youthful  beauty,  but  it  might  just  as  well  represent  any  other  hero. 

How  different  are  those  other  two  Herakles  types,  which  we  ascribed  to  Myron — 
the  bearded  head  from  the  artist’s  earlier  period  (p.  179),  the  beardless  from  the  later 
(p.  202),  in  both  of  which  we  can  trace  something  of  wild  heroic  force.  The  gentle 
beauty  of  the  Polykleitan  head  is  most  closely  paralleled  by  the  Herakles  head  on  some 

1 Pliny,  xxxiv.  56,  Hercitleiu  qui  Romae.  By  Detlefsen’s  punctuation,  which  is  certainly  correct,  the  following 
hagetera  anna  sumentem  is  a different  work.  Cf.  Benndorf  in  Festschr.  fiir  Springer,  1885,  Eine  Statue  Polyklets, 
p.  1,  note  i.  ; Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2157. 

2 In  the  Naples  copy  these  are  omitted.  The  Broadlands  head  (Fig.  96)  and  the  Berlin  janiform  term 
(477)  give  them  exactly.  In  the  Dresden  copy  they  are  broken  away. 

3 These  are  carelessly  copied  on  the  Naples  and  Berlin  (478)  heads.  The  Broadlands  (Fig.  96)  and  the 
Berlin  (477)  copies  (which  agree  exactly),  and  still  more  the  Dresden  head,  give  a more  exact  version. 


HERAKLES 


237 


coins  of  Kleonai  and  Stymphalos,1  i.e.  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Argos,  a district 
where  Polykleitan  art  must  have  been  a dominant  influence. 

The  Herakles  of  Polykleitos  is  by  no  means  a mechanical  repetition  of  his 
Doryphoros,  and  yet  the  work  shows  a striving  rather  towards  harmonious  repose 


Fig.  97. — Polykleitan  statue  in  Coll.  Barracco,  Rome.  (By  permission  of  Messrs.  Bruckmann. 


and  pure  abstract  beauty  than  towards  characterization.  We  can  understand  the 
judgment  of  antiquity  as  given  by  Quinctilian,  according  to  which  Polykleitos  non 
explevisse  deornm  auctoritatem  videtur  . . . nil  ausns  ultra  leves  genas. 


Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  2163,  /.  53  seq. 


POLYKLEITOS 


Another  creation,  which  must  be  assigned  to  Polykleitos  himself,  and  which  has 
in  common  with  the  Doryphoros  the  walking  motive  (the  right  leg  being  the  support- 
ing one),  the  turn  of  the  head  to  the  right,  and,  above  all,  the  bodily  forms,  affords 
fresh  proof  of  how  little  this  artist  simply  repeated  his  ‘ canon,’  and  of  how  fresh 
and  independent  was  each  of  his  works.  By  merely  altering  the  movement,  in  this 
case  of  the  arms,  he  has  created  a totally  new  conception  (Fig.  97). 

The  statue  is  known  to  us  complete  only  on  a much-reduced  scale,  but  there 
are  copies  of  the  torso  in  the  original  size,  which  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Dory- 
phoros.1 The  restrained  repose  of  the  Doryphoros  is  here  abandoned.  The  left 
hand  is  laid  on  the  back — it  rests  behind  the  left  hip  on  the  upper  part  of  the  gluteus 
— and  the  right  arm,  which  hung  down,  appears,  from  a fragment  above  the  right 
hip  in  one  of  the  statuettes,2  to  have  held  an  attribute  shaped  like  a staff.  The  head 
is  turned  to  the  right  with  more  animated  freedom  than  in  the  Doryphoros.  Finally, 
the  left  leg  is  not,  as  in  the  Doryphoros,  simply  drawn  after  the  other  in  such  a way 
that  the  front  surfaces  of  both  thighs  lie  in  the  same  plane,  but  the  left  foot  is  more 
turned  out  so  that  the  thigh  too  slants  outwards.  All  these  changes  introduce  more 
life  and  freedom  ; in  fact,  the  attitude  might  almost  be  called  bold  and  unrestrained. 

The  analogy  to  the  Doryphoros  in  the  formation  of  head  and  body,  although 
striking,  docs  not  amount  to  identity.  In  our  statue  all  is  rounder  and  less  severe.3 
It  is  certainly  a later  work  than  the  Doryphoros.  Who  is  represented  it  is  difficult 
to  say,  probably  not  an  athlete.  The  bold  presentment  is  not  suited  to  a human 
victor,  at  least  not  according  to  the  Doric  notions  of  the  time,  which  always  lay 
stress  in  athlete  statues  on  modesty  and  restraint.  The  remains  of  the  attribute, 
too,  would  be  difficult  to  explain.  I therefore  incline  to  interpret  the  figure  as 
Hermes  with  the  herald’s  staff  in  his  right  hand.4  The  motive  of  the  left  arm  would 
make  the  figure  a forerunner  of  the  Belvedere  Hermes. 


III.  The  Diaditmenos. 

The  Diadumenos  is  the  second  undoubted  work  of  Polykleitos  which  survives  to 
us  in  copies.  Michaclis  has  shown,  principally  by  comparison  with  the  Doryphoros, 
that  the  statue  from  Vaison  in  the  British  Museum  is  a copy  of  this  statue.5  But 
the  further  questions  as  to  the  artistic  value  of  this  copy  and  the  existence  of  other 
replicas  have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  investigated.  Yet  this  inquiry  is  unavoidable 
in  order  to  form  an  exact  notion  of  the  original. 

1 Statuettes  : Gall,  dei  Candelabri,  269  B : head  broken,  but  genuine  ; right  arm  restored  ; feet  ancient  ; 
workmanship  poor.  The  Barracco  statuette  ( Coll.  Barracco,  PI.  45,  45  a — our  Fig.  97)  is  better:  clean,  sharp 
workmanship  ; no  restorations. — Life-size  torsos  : (a)  Palazzo  Mattei  (cf.  Petersen  in  Bull,  della  Commiss.  Comm. 
1890,  p.  1 9 1 ) ; (b)  formerly  in  possession  of  Spiess  the  sculptor  in  Rome  (photograph  in  the  Berlin  Museum),  and 
is  now  in  the  Coll.  Jacobsen,  Copenhagen  ; (r)  in  the  Thermae  of  Caracalla  (Matz-Duhn,  1013). 

2 In  the  Barracco  copy.  In  the  Jacobsen  torso  the  arm  hung  down  as  in  the  Doryphoros  (puntello  at  the 
same  spot). 

3 The  insipid  Vatican  statuette,  in  which  all  the  forms  have  a marked  roundness,  is  in  this  respect  quite 
inexact : the  mouth,  for  example,  has  lost  all  Polykleitan  character.  The  Barracco  statuette  is  much  more  severe, 
and  more  similar  to  the  Doryphoros  in  head  as  in  body.  In  the  large  torsos  the  body  comes  very  near  the 
Doryphoros. 

4 The  Hermes  of  Polykleitos  mentioned  by  Pliny  was  probably  in  Rome,  as  Pliny’s  words — qui  fuit 
Lysimacheae — show,  and  must  have  been  copied.  For  the  motive  cf.  the  coin  of  Chalkedon  in  the  British 
Museum  ( Catalogue  Bantus,  PI.  28,  3),  where  the  left  arm  is  set  against  the  body,  and  the  right  hand  holds  the 
kerykeion,  but  the  head  has  a different  turn. 

5 Ann.  d.  Inst.  1S78,  p.  10  seq.\  Monu/n.  x.  49. 


THE  DIADUMENOS 


239 


E.  Petersen  lately  made  an  important  contribution  to  this  subject  by  discovering 
in  a number  of  torsos  copies  of  the  body  of  the  Diadumenos.1  Most  of  these  are  better 
and  more  careful  pieces  of  work  than  the  Vaison  statue.  The  following  are  worthy 
of  special  notice  : a torso  in  Palazzo  Giustiniani,2  another  in  the  Louvre,3  to  which  I may 
add  an  excellent  one  in  Turin 4 (not  mentioned  by  Petersen).  A small  statuette 
torso  worked  as  a cabinet  piece  should  also  be  reckoned  among  the  exact  copies.5 

For  the  study  of  the  body  of  the  original  we  have  a reliable  basis  in  these  torsos. 
But  what  of  the  head  ? 

The  head  of  the  Vaison  statue  can  give  us  but  a very  unsatisfactory  notion 
of  the  original  ; not  so  much  because,  like  the  body,  it  is  a poor  and  careless 
piece  of  work,  as  because  it  is  so  much  defaced  and — worse  than  this — so  much 
and  so  arbitrarily  worked  over.  The  forehead  is  completely  damaged,  the  eyes 
are  injured,  the  nose  is  entirely  gone,  the  ears  and  all  the  prominent  parts  of  the 
hair  have  been  knocked  off,  and  the  edges  of  the  fractures  rubbed  smooth,  so  that 
only  the  foundation  or  lowest  stratum  of  the  hair-modelling  remains.  On  the  top  of 
this  the  modern  restorer  has  engraved  lines  according  to  his  own  fancy.6  This  makes 
the  hair  look  as  if  it  lay  close  to  the  head  and  fell  away  from  the  crown  in  long  wavy 
lines.  In  order  therefore  to  form  an  accurate  conception  of  the  original  we  must 
begin  by  disregarding  this  head  with  all  its  misleading  interpolations,  and  look  for 
copies  in  better  preservation.7 

A terra-cotta  statuette  from  Asia  Minor  is  interesting  in  this  connexion.8  It 
belongs  to  a small  class  of  terra-cottas  which  are  real  copies  from  statuary  originals  :9 
they  are  naturally  somewhat  less  exact  than  the  larger  ones  in  marble,  though  they 
do  not  aim  at  being  anything  but  copies  ; further,  they  belong  approximately  to  the 
same  period — the  first  century  B.C. — at  which  the  exact  copies  in  marble  of  older 
originals  came  into  vogue.  If  we  compare  the  body  of  the  terra-cotta  Diadumenos  with 
that  of  the  marble  replicas,  we  find  a very  close  correspondence,10  so  that  the  same  is 
likely  to  be  the  case  with  the  head.  Now,  from  the  treatment  of  the  hair  and  the 
modelling  of  the  forehead  it  is  clear,  in  spite  of  the  small  scale,  that  the  head  repro- 
duces a well-known  Diadumenos  type,  known  to  us  through  separate  heads,  in  Cassel 
and  in  Dresden,  and  usually  supposed  not  to  be  Polykleitan. 

1 Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch.  Comunale,  1890,  185  seq.  2 Petersen,  No.  5. 

3 Petersen,  p.  189,  note  2.  The  statue  is  now  numbered  2235  (photo.  Giraudon). 

4 Museum,  Turin.  Torso  without  restorations  ; no  puntelli  on  the  shoulders.  Measurements  the  same  as 
those  of  the  other  replicas. 

6 Berlin,  Skulpt.  No.  513. 

6 I1  was  Loschcke  who  first  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Vaison  head  had  been  worked  over.  A.  PI. 
Smith  kindly  examined  the  original  at  my  request,  and  confirms  my  suspicion.  He  writes  : ‘ You  are  right  : in 
those  parts  where  the  hair  is  especially  sharp,  the  surface  has  been  worked  over  by  a restorer.  ’ 

Michaelis  {Ann.  d.  Inst.  1878,  p.  11,  A;  tav.  d’agg.  B. ) gives  the  first  place  among  copies  of  the  Poly- 
kleitan statue  to  a small  bronze  of  the  former  Janze  Collection.  Pie  goes  so  far  as  to  try  to  recover  the  propor- 
tions of  the  original  from  this  bronze.  This  is  a mistake,  for  the  technique  and  style  of  the  bronze  prove 
it  to  be  a Greek  work  of  the  best  period,  and  as  such  it  is  excluded  from  the  category  of  copies.  The  artist 
is  of  course  influenced  by  the  famous  work  of  Polykleitos,  but  he  gives  a free  imitation  of  it  : no  definite 
conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  this  bronze  as  regards  the  Polykleitan  Diadumenos. 

8 J-  H.  S.  1885,  PI.  61  (A.  S.  Murray),  now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  C.  Blacker  in  London.  I have  held 
the  oiiginal  in  my  hands,  and  can  testify  that  it  is  genuine.  The  head  of  another  terra-cotta  belongs  to  M.  Misthos 
in  Smyrna. 

These  figures  survive  mostly  in  fragments.  They  come  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Smyrna  ; there  were 
numeious  fragments  of  this  kind  in  the  former  Greau  Collection. 

Opinions  on  this  figure  have  hitherto  been  founded  on  wrong  premises.  E.  Petersen,  Bull.  d.  Comm.  Arch. 
1890,  186,  4,  calls  it  an  original.  Von.  Sybel  ( IVeltgesch . d.  Kunst,  p.  194)  assimilates  it  to  the  Farnese  type, 
fi om  which  the  motive  alone  would  be  enough  to  distinguish  it.  Sal.  Reinach  {Gazette  Arch.  1887,  281)  thought 
it  might  be  a copy  of  a more  recent  work,  perhaps  by  Praxiteles. 


. % n 


. 


Fig.  98. — Diadumenos  in  ^Madrid. 


242 


POLYKLEITOS 


7.  A much-defaced  head  on  a statue  to  which  it  does  not  belong,  in  the  court- 
yard of  the  Palazzo  Giustiniani.1 

That  these  copies  reproduce  the  famous  work  of  Polykleitos  seems  probable  from 
two  considerations  alone.  First,  they  arc  all  referable  to  the  same  original,  which 
must  have  been  a famous  one.  Second,  all  other  ‘Diadumenos’  heads  arc  entirely 
different  and  arc  certainly  un-Polykleitan.2  But  this  probability  becomes  a certainty 
when  we  add  the  evidence  of  the  Vaison  and  Madrid  statues. 

Since,  then,  we  possess  reliable  copies  of  the  head  of  the  Diadumenos  of  Poly- 
klcitos,  as  well  as  of  the  body,  we  have  the  material  before  11s  for  a discussion  of  the 
whole  work. 

A correct  appreciation  of  the  great  difference  which  undoubtedly  subsists  between 
the  head  of  the  Doryphoros  and  the  Diadumenos  heads  enumerated  above  has  given 
rise  to  the  mistaken  opinion  that  the  latter  were  not  the  work  of  Polykleitos,  but 
were  specifically  Attic  in  character.  They  were  supposed  to  be  better  and  larger 
replicas  of  the  Farnese  Diadumenos.3  These  hasty  conclusions  were  the  result  of 
defective  observation.  The  different  arrangement  of  the  fillet,  which  is  tied  in  a 
bow  behind,  and  the  treatment  of  the  hair  arc  enough  in  themselves  to  exclude 
the  Farnese  type  from  all  relation  to  these  heads. 

The  softer  execution  of  the  Diadumenos  shows  it  to  be  a later  work  than  the 
Doryphoros.  The  contrast  between  the  two  works  was  summed  up  epigrammatically 
in  the  passage  of  Pliny,  where  the  Doryphoros  is  ascribed  as  viriliter  pner , and  the 
Diadumenos  as  molliter  juvenis. 

The  Diadumenos  should  probably  be  assigned  to  the  same  later  period  of  the 
master’s  career  as  the  Hera.  I think  I am  not  mistaken  in  finding  a certain  kinship 
between  the  head  of  Hera  on  coins  of  Elis  (PI.  VF  23)  and  the  Diadumenos.  The 
short  yet  full  and  plastic  locks,  the  broad  diadem  sunk  deep  in  the  hair,  the  angular 
contour  of  the  powerful  skull,  the  large  features  and  especially  the  lower  part  of  the 
face,  are  strong  points  of  resemblance  made  doubly  remarkable  by  the  difference  of 
sex  and  of  subject. 

The  body  of  the  Diadumenos  is  scarcely  to  be  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
Doryphoros.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  small  differences  that  do  occur  are 
due  to  the  copyist  or  to  the  original,  yet  in  the  best  copies  of  the  Diadumenos  the 
flesh-forms  produce  an  impression  of  greater  spareness  and  elasticity,  and  of  softer 
transitions  in  modelling.  With  regard  to  details,  it  should  be  noted  that  on  none  of 
the  Diadumenos  copies  do  veins  appear  on  the  abdomen. 

In  movement  and  carriage  the  Diadumenos  comes  very  near  the  Doryphoros. 
He  also  rests  on  the  right  foot,  pauses  in  the  act  of  walking,  and  inclines  his  head  to 
the  right.  Here  too,  notwithstanding  the  different  direction,  the  left  arm  is  the  one  in 
more  active  motion  ; it  is  freer,  and  held  more  away  from  the  body,  while  the  right 
upper  arm  is  kept  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  body,  till  the  forearm  bends  sharply 
back  and  upwards.  The  pose  of  head  differs  from  that  of  the  Doryphoros  in  being 
much  more  bent  and  inclined  to  the  right,  although  the  change  is  not  required  by  the 
action  represented.  The  intention  evidently  was  to  give  to  the  figure  a softer  and 
more  flowing  rhythm.  Another  small  point  in  which  this  figure  differs  from  the 
Doryphoros  is  that — as  we  have  already  noticed  in  the  figure  of  a youth  laying  his 


1 Clarac,  872,  2218  ; Matz-Duhn,  1091. 

2 The  Farnese  type  and  the  Petworth  type  discussed  above  (p.  1 6 seq.) 

3 Cf.  Botticher,  Verzeichniss  d.  Abgiisse  in  Berlin,  714,  7 1 5 5 then  Conze,  Annali  d.  Inst.  1871,  282; 
Michaelis,  Annali,  1878,  23;  Friederichs-Wolters,  510,  511. 


• • 


\ 

■ 


DIADUMENOS  AND  DORYPHOROS 


243 


hand  on  his  back  (Fig.  97)  — the  left  foot  is  a little  more  turned  out,  so  that  the  left 
thigh  is  no  longer  in  the  same  plane  as  the  right,  but  takes  a slanting  direction. 
This  change  adds  animation  to  the  pose. 

The  two  statues  differ  to  a far  greater  extent  in  the  head  than  in  either  torso 
or  attitude.  It  is  from  a study  of  the  head  that  we  first  realize  the  rapid  development 
of  which  Polykleitos  was  capable.  He  treats  the  hair  of  the  Diadumenos  in  quite  a 
new  manner,  gives  up  the  flat  clinging  strands,  and  adopts  the  full  raised  plastic 
curls  ; the  almost  finicking  trimness  of  the  Doryphoros  gives  way  to  a living  variety. 
Only  at  one  spot  in  front  does  the  hair  really  resemble  that  of  the  Doryphoros,  just 
where  the  line  which  rises  from  the  forehead  makes,  when  seen  in  profile,  a sharp 
turn  almost  at  a right  angle.  The  way  in  which  the  hair  is  here  disposed  in 
layers  is  essentially  the  same  in  both  heads,  and  is  thoroughly  characteristic  of 
the  artist. 

Again,  the  Diadumenos  differs  from  the  Doryphoros  in  the  modelling  of  the  fore- 
head ; what  was  begun  in  the  head  of  the  Herakles  has  now  been  carried  further.  While 
the  forehead  of  the  Doryphoros  projects  evenly  below  and  falls  away  in  simple  planes 
to  the  sides,  in  the  Diadumenos  the  forehead  is  slightly  hollowed  in  the  middle  (i.e.  at 
the  inter ciliuin),  and  the  arches  formed  by  the  long  framework  of  the  eyebrows  are 
distinctly  emphasized  above  the  inner  ends  of  the  eyebrows  themselves. 

Finally,  the  lower  part  of  the  face  is  in  the  Diadumenos  decidedly  softer  and  less 
prominent  than  the  same  part  in  the  Doryphoros  ; the  cheeks  and  mouth  are  modelled 
with  a richer  variety  of  planes  ; the  same  difference  is  to  be  observed  in  the  nose,1 
which,  instead  of  a hard  angular  formation,  shows  rounder  and  more  lifelike  modula- 
tions. The  bend  of  the  head  enhances  not  a little  the  general  effect  of  softness. 

The  innovations  introduced  by  Polykleitos  into  the  head  of  the  Diadumenos— 
namely,  the  strongly  plastic  hair,  the  softer  rendering  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face, 
and  the  richer  modelling — certainly  approach  the  style  which  had  obtained  in  Athens 
considerably  before  this  time,  probably  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  century.  We 
may  assume  a certain  amount  of  Attic  influence  in  the  later  period  of  Polykleitos,  and 
for  this  Kresilas  may  well  have  been  the  medium,  for  we  know  that  he  was  working 
at  Argos  just  at  this  time.  And  we  must  bear  in  mind  that,  as  I have  previously 
shown,2 3  the  fragments  of  sculpture  from  the  Heraion  of  Argos  are  worked  in  a style 
in  which  Attic  elements  preponderate,  and  are  decidedly  akin  to  the  figures  on  the 
Nike  balustrade  at  Athens  ; all  of  which  seems  to  point  to  the  probability  that  Attic 
artists  were  at  work  in  Argos. 

Withal,  Polykleitos  did  not  give  up  one  jot  of  his  individual  manner  in  the 
Diadumenos  ; he  only  developed  it  further  by  bringing  to  greater  perfection  the 
ideal  of  abstract  beauty  which  he  had  in  his  mind.  Looking  at  the  Diadumenos 
head  we  first  rightly  understand  what  Ouinctilian  means  when  he  says  that  Polykleitos 
huvianae  formae  decorem  addidit  supra  veram?  The  human  form  is  indeed  here 
represented  with  a degree  of  beauty  which  surpasses  nature.  It  is  not  strange  that 
this  statue  by  Polykleitos  should  have  fetched  at  an  auction  the  price  of  one  hundred 
talents  (Plin.xxxiv.  55),  an  enormous  sum  in  antiquity.  Many  a smaller,  freer  imitation, 

1 In  the  Paris  copy  the  nose  of  the  Diadumenos  is  almost  intact.  For  the  Doryphoros  our  most  reliable 
evidence  is  the  Naples  bronze  term. 

2 Ath.  Mittli.  iii.  1878,  p.  296  ; Archdol.  Studien  H.  Brunn  dargebr.  1893,  P-  90.  The  head  lately 
ound  at  the  Heraion,  which  Waldstein  considers  to  be  Polyldeitan,  is  more  likely  Attic.  (Cf.  p.  223,  note  1.) 

3 Quinct.  Inst.  Or.  xii.  10,  7.  Brunn’s  translation  of  the  word  decor  by  ‘ wiirdevoller  Anstand  ’ (Gesc/i.  d. 
Kiinstler,  i.  225)  is  rather  too  one-sided.  Decor  means  both  ‘decency’  and  ‘ beauty,’  but  in  this  passage  stress 
should  be  laid  on  ‘ beauty.  ’ 


24 


POLYKLEITOS 


especially  on  engraved  stones,1  testifies  to  the  admiration  of  the  ancients  for  the  head 
of  the  Diadumenos.  I may  also  mention  a bronze  head  of  magnificent  workmanship 
applied  to  a decorative  purpose  (De  Clerq  Coll,  in  Paris)  which  is  simply  a free  replica 
of  the  Diadumenos  head.2 

The  one  weak  point  about  the  statue  is  the  motive.  The  pause  in  the  act  of 
walking  is  not  appropriate  to  the  principal  action  represented.  No  one  walks 
along  while  tying  a ribbon  round  his  head.  Polykleitos,  as  we  saw  in  his  Amazon 
statues,  cannot  identify  himself  with  his  subject  sufficiently  to  create  the  motive 
from  the  centre  outwards.  The  first  consideration  for  him  is  the  beauty  of 
rhythmic  movement:  the  meaning  of  the  movement  comes  second.  The  result 
of  this  is  that  the  movement  is  beautiful  indeed,  but  appears  unnatural,  nay,  even 
affected. 

In  this  respect  the  Farnese  Diadumenos  in  the  British  Museum  far  surpasses 
the  Diadumenos  of  Polykleitos  by  the  very  simplicity  and  naturalness  of  the  con- 
ception. The  youth  stands  still  and  puts  on  the  fillet  just  as  he  would  have  done  in 
real  life.  There  is  neither  stride,  nor  bend  of  the  head,  nor  forced  attitude  of  the 
right  elbow  near  the  body.  Nor  is  there — we  must  at  the  same  time  confess — the 
charming  effect  produced  in  the  other  statue  by  rhythmic  motion  and  beautiful  closed 
curves.3 

The  ‘ Farnese  ’ Diadumenos  is  almost  universally  designated  as  Attic,4  and  a 
closer  comparison  makes  it  possible  to  define  still  more  exactly  its  claim  to  rank  as 
such.  The  head  and  the  bodily  forms,  the  whole  appearance  and  bearing,  are  nowhere 
more  closely  paralleled  than  on  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon.  If  we  compare  it,  for 
instance,  to  the  standing  youth  on  the  west  frieze  (No.  9),  we  shall  see  that  the  forms 
in  the  abdominal  region,  the  waist,  and  the  lower  edge  of  the  ribs  have  the  same 
characteristics  in  both. 

Now,  since  there  is  a tradition  that  a statue  by  Pheidias  representing  a boy,  name 
unknown,  winding  the  victor’s  fillet  round  his  head.5  stood  in  Olympia,  and  since  the 
Farnese  figure  not  only  answers  to  this  description  but  belongs  to  the  very  style 
which  we  must  assume  to  have  been  that  of  Pheidias  in  the  period  when  he  was 
working  for  Olympia,  we  are  justified  in  expressing  the  opinion  (held  already,  though 
on  insufficient  grounds,  by  Gerhard  and  Botticher)  that  the  Farnese  statue  is  a copy 
of  the  Pheidian  Diadumenos  in  Olympia. 

The  statue  fits  admirably  into  the  series  of  Pheidian  productions  with  which  we 
have  become  acquainted.  The  attitude,  with  one  foot  set  to  the  side  and  freed  from 
the  weight  of  the  body,  yet  resting  firmly  on  the  ground  (on  the  inner  edge  of  the 
sole,  at  any  rate),  recalls  the  Lemnia  and  the  Anakreon.0  The  copyist  has  treated  the 

1 E.g.  Cades,  iv.  A,  112,  1 1 3 ; further,  Berlin,  Tolken,  iv.  399  (=  Cades,  iv.  A,  116  ; Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1888, 
Taf.  3,  16)  ; paste  in  Copenhagen  (Danische  Abdrucks.  in  Berlin , No.  929) ; an  inferior  stone  in  St.  Petersburg 
{Abdrucks.  in  Berlin , 23,  2). — For  a good  copy  of  the  whole  statue  see  Cades,  cl.  iv.  F,  68  = Improntc  dell’ 
InstitiUo,  6,  73.  It  is  an  emerald-plasma  of  the  same  sort  as  those  with  representations  of  the  Doryphoros  (Berlin) 
and  the  Amazon  (Natter).  (Cf.  p.  137,  note  1 ; p.  163,  note  1.)  An  inferior  copy  on  another  gem  of  the  same 
kind  is  published,  J.  H.  S.  ii.  352. 

2 The  neck  of  an  oinchoe  rises  above  the  head,  and  the  whole  was  used  as  a vase.  The  eyes  are  of  silver. 
The  head  (called  Alexander  in  the  collection)  is  of  extraordinary  beauty.  It  comes  from  Syria. 

3 Cf.  Kekule,  Idolino , p.  13. 

4 Only  Brunn  identifies  it  with  the  Polyldeitan  Diadumenos  type  ( Annali , 1879,  218).  Cf.  for  a contrary 
view  Michaelis,  Ann.  1883,  154  seq.  Kekule  ( Idolino , p.  12)  reckons  the  Farnese  statue  among  the  Myronian 
series. 

5 Cf.  p.  39. 

8 In  common  with  the  Anakreon,  this  statue  has  the  closely  curled  pubes  defined  by  a horizontal  line  at  the 
top,  a peculiarity  also  to  be  seen  in  the  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo. 


BOXER 


245 


hair  very  carelessly  ; it  seems  to  have  resembled  the  hair  of  another  Pheidian  head 
which  we  conjectured  to  be  an  Eros  (p.  69).1 

It  is  usually  taken  for  granted  that  the  Farnese  type  is  later  than  the  Polykleitan  : 
this  opinion  is  founded  on  the  presumption  that  Polyklcitos,  because  his  Diadumcnos 
enjoyed  the  most  fame,  was  the  creator  of  the  motive.  Now  it  is  clear  from  a con- 
sideration of  form  alone  that  the  Farnese  type  is  a pure  product  of  the  older  style, 
as  the  attitude  and  the  treatment  of  the  hair  show  most  clearly  ; further,  the  natural 
simplicity  of  the  motive  as  it  appears  in  the  Farnese  statue  proves  that  we  have 
it  here  in  its  original  form.  Polyklcitos  borrowed  the  motive  from  Phcidias,  and  gave 
it  an  artistic  elaboration  which  never  could  have  formed  part  of  the  earliest  con- 
ception. This  order  of  succession  is  confirmed  by  the  chronology  of  the  two  statues 
gained  from  other  sources  ; the  work  of  Polyklcitos  was  full  fifteen  years  later 
than  that  of  Pheidias. 

For  the  invention  of  the  motive,  then,  Pheidias  is  responsible.  We  can  well 
believe  that  he  was  pleased  with  his  subject,  since  he  repeated  it  among  the  figures 
on  the  throne  of  Zeus.2 

We  may  connect  with  the  Diadumenos  on  account  of  the  similar  motive  a statue 
of  a youthful  boxer,  also  a creation  of  Polyklcitos  (Fig.  99). 

Unlike  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumenos,  which  are  above  life-size,  this  figure 
is  rather  under  life-size.  It  represents  a youth  just  out  of  boyhood — that  is,  with  more 
undeveloped  and  less  powerful  forms  than  the  other  two.  The  motive  is  again  a 
pause  in  the  act  of  walking,  the  weight  being  supported  on  the  right  leg.  The  head 
is  turned  to  the  right.  As  in  the  Diadumenos,  the  arms  are  both  raised  and  bent, 
but  there  is  a more  marked  difference  between  the  attitude  of  the  two  arms : the 
right  is  lower,  the  left  higher.  The  forearms  are  wound  round  with  the  boxing  straps, 
the  right  fist  ready  for  attack,  the  left  for  defence. 

I know  two  copies  of  this  work — one  in  Cassel,  with  the  original  head  (Fig.  99), 
and  one  without  a head  in  Fansdowne  House.3  The  second  gives  the  body  better 
than  the  first.  The  bodily  forms  correspond  with  those  of  the  Doryphoros  and 
Diadumenos  in  all  essentials  (the  abdomen  and  navel  are  very  characteristic),  except 
that  they  are  more  youthful  and  boyish.4  The  head,  which  survives  only  in  the 
feeble  sketchy  Cassel  copy,  has  hair  arranged  as  in  the  Doryphoros. 

The  motive,  in  its  fulness  of  dignity  and  balanced  harmony,  is  incontestably  fine, 
though  for  a real  and  energetic  expression  of  this  brutal  sport  we  must  turn  to  those 

1 The  head,  which  is  wrongly  placed  on  the  Penelope  of  the  Vatican  {Ant.  Denkm . ),  is  apparently,  as  far 
as  the  hair  is  concerned,  a more  accurate  replica  of  the  head  of  the  Farnese  statue.  The  principal  proportions 
(fillet  to  chin  13^  cm.)  correspond,  although  the  eyes  of  the  Penelope  head  are  smaller  and  flatter,  and  the 
mouth  is  narrower.  In  these  points  the  Farnese  head  is  the  more  correct,  but  it  gives  only  a sketchy  rendering 
of  the  hair,  which  is  more  exact  in  the  ‘ Eros  ’ head. 

2 Cf.  p.  39.  Fora  similar  motive  cf.  a goddess  on  the  frieze  of  the  Athena  Nike  temple  (No.  12,  called 
Amphitrite  by  Sauer,  Aus  der  Anomia,  p.  94  set/.) 

3 The  Cassel  statue  (ii.  17)  is  poorly  illustrated  in  Bouillon,  iii.  Statues , PI:  17,  1.  Parian  marble,  the 
same  in  the  head  and  body.  The  neck  is  restored,  but  the  head  seems  genuine.  The  turn  of  the  head  is  known 
from  the  one  piece  of  the  neck  attached  to  the  torso,  and  another  piece  attached  to  the  head.  The  head  was 
probably  a little  more  bent.  The  left  arm  and  the  right  shoulder  are  restored,  the  right  arm  and  hand  are  ancient; 
the  legs  and  basis  are  modern.  In  the  Lansdowne  statue  (Michaelis,  p.  438,  3 ; Clarac,  851,  21S0  A),  only  the 
torso  survives  ; the  head  is  foreign  ; the  left  shoulder  with  the  beginning  of  the  raised  arm  is  ancient  ; the  rest  of 
the  arms  and  the  legs  from  the  knees  downwards  are  new.  The  proportions  correspond  with  those  of  the  Cassel 
statue  ; distance  between  nipples  21  cm.;  neck-pit  to  navel  31  ; neck-pit  to  line  between  nipples  13^  ; from  the 
latter  to  navel  17&.  The  head  of  the  Cassel  copy  is  19  cm.  high;  face-length  13.V,  nose  and  lower  face 
each  55  cm. 

4 The  pubes  is  accordingly  but  slightly  developed. 


246 


POLYKLEITOS 


violently  agitated  statues  of  severer  style  which  we  have  ascribed  to  Pythagoras 
(p.  172). 

A bronze  statuette  found  on  the  Akropolis  1 repeats  the  motive  without  attempt- 
ing to  be  an  exact  copy.  I he  right  fist  is  clenched,  but  without  the  straps  ; the  left 


Fig.  99. — Statue  ot  a boxer  (Cassel). 


is  missing.  The  severe  weathering  the  work  has  undergone  has  effaced  most  of  the 
detail,  but  the  back  and  the  glutei  recall  Polykleitos.  The  bronze  should  be  dated 
about  400  B.C. 

1 Akropolis  Museum,  among  the  older  discoveries.  Height  12  cm.  Left  hand  broken.  This  bronze  may 
be  said  to  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  Cassel  boxer  which  the  Janze  statuette  does  to  the  Diadumenos. 


THE  AMAZON 


247 


A marble  torso  in  Florence,  on  the  scale  of  the  Doryphoros  and  analogous  to  it 
in  modelling,  is  derived  from  a work  the  motive  of  which  was  very  similar  to  that  of 
the  boxer.  This  was  probably  a more  recent  creation  of  the  school  of  Polykleitos.1 

Finally,  the  Roman  artists  made  use  of  the  Diadumenos,  as  they  did  of  the 
Doryphoros,  for  portrait-statues.2 

A bronze  statuette  in  Carlsruhc,  with  an  Etruscan  inscription,  evidently  a 
derivative  from  the  Diadumenos  of  Polykleitos,  seems  to  me  to  be  a forgery.3 

In  conclusion,  and  still  in  connexion  with  the  Diadumenos  of  Polykleitos,  we  may 
mention  a head  which,  although  hitherto  almost  unknown,  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
antiques  in  existence.  It  is  a head  of  a youth  in  the  Turin  Museum.  The  hair  is 
full  and  curly  ; a peculiar  plaited  fillet  is  imbedded  deeply  in  the  hair  and  tied 
behind.4  The  head  is  turned  to  the  right  and  slightly  bent ; the  mouth  is  a little 
open.  The  hair  is  parted  in  the  middle  in  Polykleitan  fashion,  but  the  locks  are 
much  fuller  than  even  in  the  Diadumenos.5  The  ears  are  covered  by  a thick  mass  of 
curls,  but  the  curls  on  the  nape  of  the  neck  which  appear  under  the  fillet  are  remark- 
ably like  those  on  the  Diadumenos,  which  the  Turin  head  surpasses  however  in 
sweetness  and  serenity  of  expression.  Whether  it  was  Polykleitos  himself  who  made 
this  great  advance  on  his  own  Diadumenos  is  a question  impossible  to  decide.  In 
any  case,  the  original  of  the  Turin  head  must  have  been  the  work  of  an  artist  of  the 
first  rank,  who  derived  his  inspiration  from  the  Polykleitan  statue.6 


IV.  The  Amazon. 

The  Amazon  is  the  third  of  those  works  of  Polykleitos  which  are  universally 
acknowledged  to  exist  in  copies.  We  have  already  discussed  this  figure  in  connexion 
with  Kresilas  and  Pheidias  (p.  128  seq.)\  it  now  remains  to  examine  its  relation  to 
the  other  statues  of  Polykleitos. 

In  style  the  Amazon  is  nearer  to  the  Doryphoros  than  to  the  Diadumenos : the 
head  {supra,  Fig.  55)  shows  this  very  clearly.  The  hard  and  prominent  lower  part  of 
the  face,  the  mouth  projecting  strongly  in  the  middle  and  receding  towards  the 
sides,  the  simple  flat-lying  hair,  connect  the  Amazon  closely  with  the  Doryphoros, 
and  distinguish  it  from  the  Diadumenos.  Even  in  attitude  the  Amazon  is  more 
like  the  former  of  the  two,  for  the  left  forearm  is  bent  and  stretched  forward  hori- 
zontally, the  thighs  run  parallel,  the  point  of  the  left  foot  not  being  turned  outwards. 
This  conclusion  is  borne  out  by  what  we  know  from  other  sources  as  to  the  date 

1 Uffizi,  67  ; Diitschke,  76;  Photo.  Alinari,  i.  1179.  The  head  is  foreign  ; both  arms  new  ; the  left  was 
raised,  the  right  hung  down.  The  palm-stem  indicates  a copy  of  a 1 victor  ’ statue. 

2 The  statue  in  Naples,  Inv.  6271,  evidently  makes  use  of  the  Diadumenos,  yet  the  turn  of  the  head 
(now  replaced  by  a restored  one)  is  altered,  and  the  round  chlamys  is  added  on  the  left  shoulder.  A dolphin 
and  a polypus  on  the  stem.  Plainly  a Roman  portrait.  The  statuette,  Museo  Torlonia  72,  is  influenced  by 
the  Diadumenos  ; the  arms  wrongly  restored  ; neck  modern  ; the  head  resembling  Tiberius  is  antique,  and 
probably  belongs  to  the  statue. 

3 Schumacher,  Besc/ir.  d.  Ant.  Bronzen,  932.  From  the  style,  especially  of  the  head,  and  some  external 
technical  signs,  I am  inclined  to  suspect  that  the  figure  is  not  genuine. 

4 Diitschke  (iv.  52),  who  describes  it  as  a female  head  ! Marble  Parian.  The  head  is  placed  on  an  ugly 
nude  bust.  The  nose,  part  of  both  lips,  and  the  chin  are  restored.  Face-length  19  cm.  ; inner  eye-corner  to 
chin  = hair  to  nostril  12J  cm. 

5 The  full  curl  with  rolled  end  is  one  of  the  chief  motives.  On  the  top  of  the  head  the  hair  is  only  loosely 
indicated. 

0 In  presence  of  the  original,  Kresilas  occurred  to  me,  but  I cannot  prove  the  connexion  by  comparison,  as  I 
was  unable  to  obtain  a photograph. 


248 


POLYKLEITOS 


of  the  Amazons,  falling  about  440  B.C.  Our  Amazon  would  thus  come  near  to  the 
Doryphoros,  and  be  separated  from  the  Diadumenos  by  a considerable  period 
of  time. 

The  Amazon  of  Polykleitos,  as  we  have  seen,  expresses  in  one  figure  the  Doric 
KocrfuoTiis  and  the  Doiic  rcapTepelv.  The  wounded  heroine  is  not  mastered  by  pain  : 
her  attitude  shows  weariness  only,1  her  appearance  and  clothing  arc  faultless  in 
beauty  and  order.  The  lines  of  her  form  arc  rounded  to  a perfect  harmony.  Here 
too  the  motives  arc  disposed  in  a crossing  scheme:  the  raised  arm  is  balanced  by  the 
pillar  on  the  other  side  ; the  right  leg  and  the  left  arm  arc  the  carrying,  supporting 
parts,  the  right  arm  and  the  left  leg  the  parts  at  rest. 

The  motive  which  shows  the  left  arm  supported  while  the  right  is  raised  was 
a favourite  in  Praxitelean  times.  Polykleitos  seems  to  have  invented  it  for  his 
Amazon,2  though  the  left  arm  leans  but  lightly  and  the  rest  of  the  body  is  disposed 
as  in  the  Doryphoros.  We  should  expect  to  find  other  instances  in  the  Polyklcitan 
circle  of  this  ‘ leaning’  motive,  and  there  arc,  in  fact,  some  other  traces  of  it. 

A Greek  engraved  stone  of  the  fifth  century,  from  the  period  of  Polykleitos 
himself  (Fig.  100), 3 represents  the  youthful  Heraklcs,  in  an  attitude  corresponding  in  all 

essentials  to  a Ilerakles  torso  of  Polykleitan 
character  at  Dresden.4  The  hero  is  naked 
and  without  the  lion-skin  ; the  weight  is 
supported  on  the  right  leg,  while  the  left 
is  drawn  back  in  the  walking  motive  ; the 
club  is  shouldered  and  held  by  the  right 
hand,  but  the  left  forearm  is  supported,  as 
in  the  Amazon,  on  a low  pillar.  The  lion 
stands  beside  the  hero  as  an  attribute.  The 
whole  design  is  clearly  taken  from  a statuary 
composition  of  the  period — perhaps  of  the 
school — of  Polykleitos. 

A second  gem,  this  time  of  Roman  date  (Fig.  101),5 6  represents  Ilippolytos  in  the 
walking  motive  of  the  Doryphoros,  but  with  the  left  forearm,  just  as  in  the  Amazon, 
supported — in  this  case  against  a tree  ; the  lowered  right  hand  holds  a hunting-spear  ; 
below  is  a dog.  The  figure  is  evidently  derived  from  a statue  : the  heavy  forms  of 
the  body,  the  head  with  its  large  skull  and  close  short  hair,  point  to  a work  of  the 
Polykleitan  circle.  The  Eros  standing  on  the  tree  behind  and  reading  the  love-letter 
on  the  diptychon  is  of  course  an  addition  of  the  gem-cutter,  who  wished  to  make  clear 


1 Wound  and  support  are  certainly  genuine.  Cf.  supra,  p.  134,  notes  5i  6. 

2 Cf.  Robert,  Arch.  Marchen,  p.  109  ; but  Polykleitos  need  not  therefore  be  dated  later. 

3 Cades,  Cl.  iii.  A,  no.  From  the  style,  the  above  date  is  more  likely  to  be  too  late  than  too  early. 
Remnants  of  severe  style  ; a line  round  the  edge.  Species  and  owner  unknown. 

4 Recent  purchase;  till  lately  in  Rome;  Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverkauj , No.  184.  Preserved  till  below 

the  navel.  The  connexion  with  the  Doryphoros  is  striking.  I had  myself  imagined  it  might  represent  the  statue, 
to  which  the  type  of  Herakles’  head  (Fig.  95,  96)  belonged  ; the  measurements,  which  are  practically  the  same  as 
in  the  Doryphoros,  are  however  too  large.  It  is  more  probably  to  be  restored  on  the  analogy  of  the  ‘ Theseus 
term  (of  course  no  Theseus,  but  a Herakles)  in  the  Mus.  Boncompagni-Ludovisi  (Helbig,  Museums, 861 ; Mon.  d. 
Inst.  x.  57,  2).  The  artist  of  the  original  had  affinities  to  Kresilas,  but  was  influenced  by  Polykleitos  in  the  bodily 
forms.  Breast  and  abdomen  are  quite  Polykleitan,  though  the  transitions  are  rounder,  the  edge  of  the  ribs  less 
accentuated,  and  the  flesh  softer.  The  right  hand  shoulders  the  club,  the  left  hangs  down,  the  head  (differing  in 
this  from  the  Doryphoros)  was  turned  to  the  side  of  the  free  leg,  according  to  the  Attic  fifth-century  scheme. 
Measurements:  distance  between  nipples  = 0400  (Doryph.  = 0'303)  ; neck  dimple  to  centre  of  navel  = o-455 
(Doryph.  = o-45o) ; breadth  of  hips,  0 389  (Doryph.  o-393). 

6 Carnelian  in  St.  Petersburg  [Bert.  Ahdr.  19,  24  = Cades,  i.  K,  91). 


KYNISKOS 


249 


that  the  figure  represented  Hippolytos,  and  no  common  huntsman.  The  original  statue 
probably  stood  in  Troezene,  for  on  coins  of  that  city  the  same  type,  though  roughly 
reproduced,  occurs,  the  only  difference  being  that  the  right  arm  is  raised  higher.1 

The  motive  of  the  supported  left  forearm  was  used  in  the  circle  of  Pheidias 
combined — not,  of  course,  with  the  stepping  motive,  but  with  the  left  foot  set  slightly 
forward  and  full  on  the  ground.  On  p.  71  we  have  tried  to  prove  the  existence  of  an 
Aphrodite  by  Pheidias  represented  in  this  motive. 


V.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Kyniskos. — Statue  of  a Boy  placing  a Wreath  on 

his  Head,  and  Kindred  Works. 

A sure  foundation  for  the  knowledge  of  Polykleitan  statues  is  afforded  by  the 
discovery  at  Olympia  of  the  inscribed  bases  that  supported  some  of  his  works, 
inasmuch  as  the  extant  footmarks  on  these  bases  enable  us  to  recover  the  attitude 
in  which  the  statues  stood.  Three  of  them  belong,  as  we  saw,  in  all  probability  to 
the  elder  Polykleitos,  one  to  the  younger.2  What  first  strikes  us  on  examining  the 
footmarks  on  the  Polykleitos  bases  is  that  in  not  one  of  them  does  the  scheme  of  the 
1 canon  ’ occur — i.e.  there  is  no  single  instance  of  a right  foot  bearing  the  weight  of  the 
figure  combined  with  the  left  foot  drawn  back  and  resting  only  on  the  ball.  Nor 
does  this  motive  appear  on  the  bases  of  works  by  Naukydes  or  by  Daidalos  ; only 
the  Zan  of  Kleon  (01.  98)  3 and  the  following  Zancs,  so  far  as  the  footmarks  can  be 
made  out,  illustrate  this  scheme.  The  obvious  conclusion  is  that  Polykleitos  himselt 
as  well  as  his  school  made  use  of  other  motives  besides  the  one  which  we  associate 
with  the  Doryphoros,  the  Diadumenos,  the  Amazon,  and  other  analogous  works. 

The  basis  of  Kyniskos,  the  earliest  of  them  all,  shows  that  the  left  leg  bore  the 
weight  of  the  figure,  while  the  right  foot  was  set  back  and  rested  on  the  ball ; 4 the 
statue  represented  a boy  victorious  in  the  boxing  match. 

Now  we  actually  possess  numerous  copies  of  a statue  of  Polykleitan  style  repre- 
senting a boy  victor,  in  an  attitude  that  corresponds  closely  with  the  footmarks  on  the 
Kyniskos  basis  (Fig.  102).  To  identify  the  statue  with  the  ‘ Kyniskos’  of  Polykleitos 
would  be  no  far-fetched  theory,  and  I have  long  thought  it  worthy  of  adherence  : 


1 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  M.  viii. 

2 We  should  have  a fourth  inscription  of  the  older  artist,  could  we  see  grounds  for  accepting  Benndorf’s  con- 
jecture (Ges.  Studien  zu  Kunstgeschichte,  Festschrift  f.  Springer,  18S5)  that  the  basis  in  the  shape  of  an  astragalos, 
found  in  Olympia,  formerly  supported  the  nudum  talo  incessentem  of  Polykleitos  (Pliny,  xxxiv.  55) ; there  are, 
however,  weighty  reasons  against  this  identification.  Pliny’s  words  mean  literally  ‘ a naked  man  advancing  with 
a knuckle-bone.  ’ Benndorf  supposes  that  Pliny  wrongly  translated  some  Greek  sentence  such  as  yvfivbs  cuTTpayaAip 
iiriKeifievos,  and  made  nonsense  of  it.  But  even  if  a Greek  sentence  bearing  the  meaning  supposed  by  B.  ever 
existed  (which  seems  doubtful),  and  if  Pliny  did  understand  imKeip.tvos  in  the  sense  of  ‘ advancing,  pursuing,’  he 
must  have  connected  the  word  with  darpayaXip,  and  explained  the  whole  phrase  as  ‘ advancing  towards  an  astragalos.  ’ 
There  is  no  hint  of  this  meaning  in  the  Latin  talo  incessens ; talo  must  be  the  instrument,  the  weapon,  with 
which  the  nude  man  is  advancing.  As  a knuckle-bone  cannot  be  a weapon,  there  must  be  an  error  somewhere. 
If  we  read  telo  for  talo  (Benndorf’s  own  former  suggestion)  all  difficulty  disappears  (cf.  Ovid,  Metam.  14,  402, 
saevisque  parant  incessere  telis,  13,  566  ; telorum  lapidumque  incessere  iactu  coepit ).  The  corruption  of  the  passage 
is  then  explained  by  the  tails  ludentes  immediately  following,  from  which  talo  was  transferred  to  take  the  place 
of  telo  ; the  item  nudos  refers  to  the  preceding  nudus.  The  evidence,  then,  does  not  permit  us  to  identify  the 
bronze  statue  set  up  at  Olympia  on  a marble  astragal  with  a work  of  Polykleitos.  The  statue  may,  as  Benndorf 
suggests,  have  represented  Kairos  ; but  it  was  very  possibly  only  the  portrait  of  a human  being  who,  by  the  shape 
he  adopted  for  the  basis  of  his  statue,  recalled  the  particular  stroke  of  good  fortune  which  had  moved  him  to  bring 
a thank-offering  to  the  divinity.  As  the  attitude  of  the  feet  corresponds  to  the  Kyniskos  basis,  the  work  belonged 
probably  to  the  Polykleitan  circle. 

3 Lowy,  Inscr.  gr.  Bildh.  95. 

4 See  drawing  of  upper  surface  of  the  basis,  Arch.  Zlg.  1882,  189  ; Lowy,  1.  G.  B.  p.  43,  No.  50. 

K K 


POLYKLEITOS 

lately  both  Petersen  and  Collignon  have  expressed 
the  same  opinion.1  Unfortunately,  however,  abso- 
lute certainty  can  scarcely  be  attained,2  as  it  is 
no  longer  possible  to  measure  accurately  the  length 
of  the  foot  of  the  Kyniskos  figure  ; in  any  case, 
it  must  have  been  more  than  20  cm.  ; 3 the  length 
of  the  foot  of  the  statue  is  233  mm.  ; the  distance 
between  the  left  heel  and  the  ball  of  the  right 
foot  is,  in  the  statue,4  16  cm. ; the  two  correspond- 
ing holes  on  the  Kyniskos  basis  are  about  175  mm. 
apart.  These  measurements  are  very  nearly  alike 
in  the  basis  and  the  statue.  The  boy  Kyniskos, 
like  the  statue,  was  of  life-size,  and  his  feet  were 
exactly  in  the  same  position. 

Two  replicas  of  this  statue  have  long  been 
known.  One  is  the  so-called  ‘ Westmacott’  athlete 
in  the  British  Museum,  the  other  is  in  the  Barracco 
collection.5 6  The  London  copy  is  undoubtedly  the 
better  of  the  two.  The  Barracco  figure  is  dull  and 
slight  in  workmanship ; the  London  replica  re- 
produces the  body  more  sharply  and  finely,  and 
the  head  especially  with  much  more  exactitude. 
The  hair  in  the  Barracco  copy  is  carelessly  ren- 
dered by  mere  indications  of  superficial  effect ; in 
the  London  copy  there  is  plainly  a conscientious 
imitation  of  the  bronze  original. 

To  these  two  copies  may  be  added  a whole 
series  of  others.  These  are,  it  is  true,  mostly 
torsos  and  separate  heads,  but  the  very  fact  of  their 
existence  in  such  numbers  proves  that  the  original 
was  famous  and  by  a celebrated  artist.  The 
following  are  exact  replicas  : a statue  in  the  garden  of  the  Palazzo  del  Quirinale  in 
Rome  ; the  head  has  never  been  broken.0  It  is  not  so  good  as  the  London  copy,  and 

1 Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1893,  P-  101  seq.;  Collignon,  Hist,  de  la  Sculpt,  i.  p.  499. 

2 Petersen  (loc.  cit)  thinks  the  identification  more  certain  than  I could  venture  to  assert,  as  there  must 
have  been  several  Polykleitan  statues  of  boys  with  the  same  position  of  the  feet.  Further,  it  is  hardly 
likely  that  the  original  of  our  favourite  and  oft-copied  statue  was  still  in  the  Alt  is  in  the  time  of  Pausanias,  as 
the  Kyniskos  was,  on  whose  basis  there  are  no  traces  such  as  occur  on  the  base  of  the  Pythokles  to  show  that  the 
original  had  been  taken  away. 

3 Cf.  Purgold,  Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  192.  The  distance  between  the  two  holes  for  the  insertion  of  the  left  foot, 
probably  meant  for  the  toe  and  heel,  is  about  20  cm. ; the  lower  hollow  may  have  been  quite  close  to  the  point  of 
the  toe.  Hence  the  foot  need  not  have  been  more  than  23  cm.  long. 

4 In  the  London  copy.  Cf.  following  note. 

5 For  discussion  of  these  statues  see  Petersen,  Arch.  Ztg.  1863,  1 3 1 ; Helbig,  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1885,  76; 
Winnefeld,  Hypnos , p.  30  seq.  ; Treu,  Arch.  Anzeiger,  1889,  57  ; Kekule,  Idolino,  p.  13  ; Wolters  in  Lepsius, 
Marmorstudien,  p.  83,  No.  164;  Philios,  ’E <j>Tifxep\sap  x-  1890,  p.  207  seq. ; Sauer,  ibid.  p.  21 1 ; Petersen,  Rom. 
Mitth.  1891,  p.  304  ; Collignon,  Hist,  de  la  Sculpt,  i.  499  ; Helbig,  Rendiconti  del T Accad.  dei  Lined , 18  ; 
Die.  1892,  p.  790  seq.,  ‘ sopra  un  tipo  di  Narcisso'  ; Milchhofer,  Arch.  Studien  H.  Brunn  darg.  1893,  p.  63; 
Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1893,  p.  101. — Photograph  of  the  London  statue  in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmaler,  No.  46  ; 
of  the  Barracco  statue  in  the  Collection  Barr.  PL  38,  38  a.  Sketches  of  both  in  Kekule,  Idolino,  Taf.  iv. , and  in  the 
'Erfrrifx.  p.  207. — In  the  London  statue  the  head  is  unbroken,  and  even  the  nose  ancient.  The  left  hand  is  broken 
but  ancient.  The  execution  is  not  slavish  in  detail,  but  gives  the  broad  general  characteristics  ; the  marble  is  Parian. 

6 Matz-Duhn,  210.  On  a fountain,  drapery  round  the  loins  restored.  The  right  arm  may,  I think,  be  antique. 


250 


WESTMACOTT  ATHLETE 


251 


comes  nearer  to  the  Barracco  head.  The  right  arm  is  joined,  and  perhaps  antique. 
The  hand  makes  a movement  towards  the  head.  There  are  two  torsos  in  Berlin,  one 
of  them  specially  good,1  another  in  Dresden,2  of  poor  and  exaggerated  workmanship. 
The  Museo  Torlonia  possesses  a very  good  torso3  restored  as  a Hermes  ; the  nipples 
imitate  bronze  technique.  A poor 
copy  in  the  Villa  Albani  is  restored 
as  a Brutus  by  the  addition  of  a 
portrait-head  representing  a Roman 
of  the  end  of  the  second  century.4 * 

Sir  Edgar  Vincent  possesses  a 
good  copy  of  the  head  alone  (Fig. 

103)7’  preferable  even  to  the  London 
one.  Mouth  and  cheeks,  particu- 
larly, have  kept  a simplicity  and  a 
severity  which  can  only  be  due  to 
the  original.  The  hair,  though  in- 
dividual enough,  is  not'worked  with 
much  detail.  The  style  is  distinctly 
Polykleitan.  This  is  still  more  the 
case  in  a copy  of  the  head  in  the 
Hermitage  (Fig.  104), 6 by  far  the 
best  that  exists.  Here  the  hair  is 
carefully  imitated  from  the  bronze 
original : the  way  in  which  it  is 
disposed  in  layers,  the  shape  of  the 
separate  strands,  especially  behind 
and  in  front  of  the  ear,  are  so 
entirely  Polykleitan,  and  corres- 
pond so  closely  to  the  Doryphoros, 
that  the  work  must  be  ascribed 
to  Polykleitos,  and  dated  not  far 
from  the  Doryphoros.  Entirely 

Polykleitan  also  are  the  angular  build  of  skull,  the  large  planes  of  the  cheeks, 
the  protruding  mouth,  the  formation  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  and  the  regular 
forehead  only  slightly  projecting  at  its  base.  It  seems  that  a good  replica  of  the  head 


Fig.  103. — Head  of  boy  in  possession  of  Sir  Edgar  Vincent). 


1 Berlin,  Skulpt.  No.  514,  is  a very  well  executed,  exact  copy.  A second  copy  in  Berlin  has  restored  head 
and  limbs. 

2 Hettner’s  Catalogue , No.  254.  Cf.  Treu,  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  57. 

3 Mus.  Torlonia,  No.  59. 

4 Villa  Albani,  No.  46.  Puntello  for  the  left  arm  in  the  usual  place. 

!i  Formerly  in  the  Van  Branteghem  Coll.  ; from  Italy.  The  right  side  of  the  head  is  less  finished  than 
the  left. 

6 Guedeonow,  No.  28.  Bust  and  neck  restored,  otherwise  in  good  preservation.  Admirable  workmanship. 
Cited  by  Conze,  Beitrdge,  p.  7,  as  analogous  to  the  Doryphoros.  That  it  is  a replica  of  the  Westmacott 
athlete  is  proved  by  the  correspondence  in  scale,  the  vigorous  turn  of  the  head,  and  the  similarity  in  the 
hair.  Even  the  bad  copies,  like  the  Barracco  head,  have  the  characteristic  wisp  of  hair  in  front  of  the  left  ear. 
The  rest  of  the  hair  matches  the  Westmacott  copy  strand  for  strand.  The  proportions  of  the  St.  Petersburg 
head  are  : length  of  head,  19  cm.  ; length  of  face,  148  mm.  ; length  of  eyeball,  26 — 27  mm.  ; width  of 
mouth,  39  ; inner  corner  of  eye  to  hair,  58  mm.  ; length  of  ear,  54  mm.  The  face-length  is  an  important 
standard  measurement  for  the  torso  ; from  the  ensiform  process  of  the  breast-bone  to  the  navel,  and  from  the 
navel  to  the  insertion  of  the  penis,  are  each  one  face-length.  The’chest,  from  the  neck-pit  to  the  ensiform  process, 
is  a little  more. 


252 


POLYKLEITOS 


stands  in  the  Museo  Torlonia.1  I know  a mediocre  one  from  a cast  in  Strasburer,2 
and  there  is  another  in  the  Lateran.3 

The  Polyklcitan  origin  of  the  statue,  placed  beyond  a doubt  by  the  good  copies 
of  the  head,  is  confirmed  by  the  modelling  of  the  body.  The  points  which  distinguish 

it  from  the  Doryphoros  and  the  Diadumenos 
are  only  a consequence  of  the  difference 
of  age  in  the  persons  represented  ; the 
style  is  absolutely  the  same.  The  large 
surface  planes  clearly  marked  off  from 
each  other  arc  characteristic,  and  so  are 
the  details  of  form,  such  as  the  flat  navel 
and  its  surrounding  parts,  the  central 
groove  or  linen  alba  below  the  navel,  and 
the  well-marked  hollow  at  the  side  of  the 
gluteus,4 5  a point  on  which  Michaelis  lays 
stress  as  being  specially  characteristic  of  the 
Doryphoros  and  the  Diadumenos.  In  both 
cases  it  is  striking  that  the  hollow  is  equally 
pronounced  on  the  side  of  the  ‘free’  leg 
as  on  that  of  the  ‘ supporting  ’ leg.  Michaelis 
was  doubtless  right  in  calling  this  a personal 
trait.  Other  peculiarities  of  bodily  forma- 
tion, cited  by  Michaelis  as  common  to  the 
Doryphoros  and  the  Diadumenos,  are  here 
reproduced  as  nearly  as  they  can  be  con- 
sidering the  more  tender  age  of  the  subject : 
such  are  the  modelling  of  the  knee  which 
fig.  104. — Head  of  a boy  (Hermitage).  bears  the  weight  of  the  figure,  and  the 

strongly  marked  roll  of  muscle  over  it. 
Again,  the  back  of  the  figure  (Fig.  105)  5 must  be  studied  in  order  to  understand  that 
its  distinguished  beauty  is  in  complete  accord  with  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumenos. 

The  head  proves  that  this  statue  must  be  dated  much  nearer  to  the  Doryphoros 
and  the  Amazon  than  to  the  Diadumenos — that  is  to  say,  that  it  belongs  to  the  period 
about  440  B.C.  The  hard,  spare  modelling  and  the  flat  rendering  of  the  hair  differ 
as  much  from  the  Diadumenos  as  they  resemble  the  Doryphoros  and  the  Amazon. 
It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that  the  depression  marking  the  crown  of  the  head  is  as 
shallow  as  in  those  two  works,  and  that,  just  as  in  the  Doryphoros,  the  hair  comes 
barely  to  the  edge  of  the  ear.  Finally,  the  walking  motive  is  expressed  as  simply  as 
in  the  Doryphoros  and  the  Amazon,  both  thighs  being  in  the  same  plane. 

The  motive  of  the  statue  is  allied  in  meaning  to  that  of  the  Diadumenos. 
The  one  binds  on  the  victor’s  fillet,  the  other  presumably  places  the  wreath,  also  a 
token  of  victory,  on  his  head0 — at  least  no  more  suitable  restoration  than  this  could 

1 No.  474.  The  head  is  placed  leaning  too  far  back. 

2 No.  597,  Michaelis.  I do  not  know  where  the  original  is. 

3 Lateran,  No.  498.  Neck  new  ; head  wrongly  set  on.  Petersen  {Rom.  Mitth.  1893,  p.  101)  mentions 

two  further  replicas  : (1)  a lower  part  of  the  face  from  the  Palatine  ; (2)  a torso  at  Marinangeli’s.  I have  seen 
neither.  4 Michaelis,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1878,  p.  16. 

5 Cf.  Michaelis,  loc.  cit.  17.  Fig.  105  is  from  a photograph  of  the  London  statue. 

fi  Winnefeld  {loc.  cit.)  first  suggested  this,  then  Wolters,  Treu,  Petersen,  Collignon  {loc.  cit.),  and,  hesitatingly, 
Kekule.  Philios,  Sauer,  Helbig,  and  Milchhofer  disputed  it. 


Fig.  105. — Back  of  Westmacott  athlete  (British  Museum). 


254 


POLYKLEITOS 


be  found  for  the  Barracco  copy,1  where  the  arm  is  preserved  down  to  the  wrist,  and 
the  hand  was  not  raised  but  slightly  bent  ; further,  a whole  series  of  monuments  which, 
as  is  evident  by  the  correspondence  in  their  attitudes,  must  be  regarded  as  free 
imitations  of  our  statue,2  show  the  boy  in  the  act  of  placing  a wreath  on  his  head, 
and  the  whole  posture  corresponds  to  this  motive.3  The  bent  carriage  of  the  head  is 
no  objection,  for  it  is  evidently  meant  to  express  the  modesty  which  the  artist,  in  the 
true  spirit  of  antiquity,  conceived  as  the  fairest  ornament  of  victorious  youth.  That  Poly- 
kleitos  actually  did  think  of  the  subject  in  this  way  seems  certain  from  the  evidence  of 
the  Diadumenos,  where  the  act  is  the  same,  and  the  head  is  bent.  This  is  one  of  many 
coincidences  which  intimately  connect  our  statue  with  Polykleitos.  The  rest  of  the 
body  also  is  in  a purely  Polyklcitan  attitude  ; besides  the  walking  motive,  we  should 
notice  the  arm  hanging  idle  with  open  fingers  by  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg. 

A new  feature,  and  one  not  found  in  any  of  the  Polyklcitan  statues  we  have 
hitherto  examined,  is  that  the  head  has  a decided  turn  away  from  the  side  which 
supports  the  weight  of  the  body.  This  breaks  the  central  line  of  the  figure,  and 
makes  the  rhythm  altogether  more  animated. 

The  Amazon  of  Kresilas  shows  such  a striking  resemblance  in  attitude  to  this 
statue  4 that  we  might  almost  suppose  that  Polykleitos  is  here  influenced  by  the  Attic 
master.  The  reverse  is  certainly  not  the  case  ; for  the  motive  of  the  boy  is  slightly 
artificial,  and  does  not  follow  necessarily  from  the  action  as  does  the  motive  of  the 
Amazon.  The  boy  might  just  as  well  look  to  the  other  side  ; not  so  the  Amazon,  for 
all  her  activity  and  emotion  are  centred  on  the  wound.  Again,  the  left  arm  of  the 
boy  is  not  included  in  the  activity  of  the  body,  but  hangs  carelessly  down,  following 
the  ‘ canon  ’ of  Polykleitos,  while  to  the  corresponding  arm  of  the  Amazon  a necessary 
share  in  the  action  is  assigned.  This  is  an  instance  of  the  contrast  between  the  two 
masters.  The  motive  can  only  have  been  invented  by  the  artist  who  makes  it  appear 
a natural  consequence  of  the  situation.  Polykleitos  adapts  part  of  it  merely  for  the 
love  of  beautiful  form. 

One  figure  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  5 is  very  like  the  Polykleitan  statue,  only  that 
the  movement  is  more  animated,  the  sides  are  reversed,  and  the  one  arm  does  not 
hang  down,  but  leads  a horse  by  the  bridle;  the  left  hand  was  arranging  the  wreath  ; 
a direct  connexion  between  this  figure  and  the  Polykleitan  statue,  which  was  the 
earlier  work,  is  not  at  all  impossible. 


1 The  bend  of  the  hands  is  shown  by  the  folds  in  the  skin  underneath  the  remaining  portion  ; the  hand  must 
have  held  something  over  the  head.  The  wreath  was  probably  of  bronze,  even  in  the  marble  copies. 

- I mean  the  monuments  which  correspond  with  our  statue  in  having  left  supporting  leg,  the  walking 
motive,  the  hanging  left  arm,  and  boyish  forms  : e.g.  the  Berlin  relief,  948  ; the  Vatican  relief,  Mus.  Pio  Clem, 
v.  36  ; the  Zodiac  relief,  Le  Bas,  Mon.  Fig.  21  ; Campana,  Opere  in  P/astica,  94  ; an  onyx  gem  in  St.  Petersburg 
(cast  in  Berlin,  26,  56),  motive  well  rendered  ; another  gem,  where  the  motive  is  adapted  for  an  Eros  victorious,  in 
the  Palestra  (Cades,  iv.  F,  18).  In  all  cases  the  boy  is  putting  on  a wreath  with  the  right  hand,  the  left  occa- 
sionally holds  a palm-branch.  For  modifications  in  the  ‘ crowning’  motive,  cf.  p.  255. 

3 The  recent  suggestion  that  the  boy  is  holding  a strigil  in  his  raised  right  hand  (Sauer  and  Philios,  loc.  cil.) 
is  certainly  wrong  : the  strigil  would  come  just  over  the  forehead  and  in  front  of  the  hair  ; looked  at  from  below,  it 
would  seem  held  even  higher.  Now  a strigil  was  never  used  for  cleansing  the  hair.  The  Pompeian  painting  (Pom. 
Mitth,  1888,  p.  199)  on  which  the  suggestion  is  based  represents  the  athlete  holding  the  strigil  to  his  forehead  ; 
moreover,  the  weight  is  on  the  right  leg,  the  forms  are  more  adult  ; the  whole  attitude  different.  Still  less  happy 
is  Helbig’s  most  recent  suggestion,  that  the  hand  is  raised  to  shade  the  eyes  from  the  sun.  The  lowered  head 
speaks  against  this  view.  The  motive  of  shading  the  eyes  with  the  hand  is  only  natural,  and  as  far  as  I know  occurs 
in  ancient  art  only  when  the  eyes  are  looking  towards  the  light,  i.e.  towards  the  horizon  or  the  sky,  and  never 
when  they  are  looking  down  to  the  ground  as  here.  Nor  is  there  any  foundation  for  Helbig’s  interpretation  of 
the  figure  as  Narkissos.  The  left  hand  is  complete  in  the  London  statue  : it  was  empty,  and  could  never  have 
held  a spear  as  Helbig  suggests. 

4 Kekule  (Idolino,  p.  14)  noticed  this. 


North  frieze,  1 3 1 (Michaelis). 


BOY  CROWNING  HIMSELF 


255 


A statue  found  within  the  sanctuary  of  Eleusis  1 seems  to  be  an  approximately 
faithful  rendering  of  the  body  of  the  original,  although  on  a somewhat  smaller  scale  ; 
but  the  head,  which  seems  less  inclined,  is  rendered  much  more  freely,  in  the  Attic 
marble  style  of  the  good  period.2  The  left  arm  may  have  been  in  a different  position, 
as  the  puntcllo  at  the  usual  place  is  missing.  The  statue  could  hardly  represent  a 
victorious  athlete  ; the  provenance  and  the  soft  expression  of  the  face  suggest  rather 
some  divine  boy,  perhaps  Triptolemos.  A torso  in  the  Museo  Torlonia3  would  be  an 
exact  copy,  except  for  a large  round  fracture-surface  on  the  right  gluteus,  indicating 
that  some  object  either  touched  the  body  or  was  connected  with  it  by  means  of  a 
support.  A torso  of  the  Villa  Albani4  is  another  ordinary  copy  ; but  an  antique  piece 
of  a boar’s  head  on  the  tree-trunk  beside  the  left  leg  shows  that  the  type  was  used  for 
a youthful  hunter — -Adonis  more  probably  than  Meleager.  The  type  was  also  adapted 
to  Dionysos,  as  we  learn  from  a torso  of  the  Museo  Torlonia  ; this  is  an  exact  copy, 
with  the  addition  of  a nebris  reaching  from  the  left  hip  to  the  right  shoulder,  the 
ends  of  which  probably  fell  over  the  arms.5  The  statue  has  been  made  into  a 
Hermes.  A torso  in  the  Terme  resembles  the  usual  copies  in  all  respects,  except  that 
a chlamys  of  good  Greek  fashion  is  laid  on  the  left  shoulder  and  falls  down  over  the 
arm,  while  the  left  hand  holds  the  kerykeion.6  Unfortunately  in  all  these  torsos  only 
enough  is  left  of  the  right  arm  to  show  that  it  was  raised.  We  do  not  know  how  the 
motive  was  accounted  for ; the  placing  of  a wreath  would  be  appropriate  only  for  a 
victor,  and  cannot  be  assumed  for  other  subjects. 

One  variant  of  the  ‘crowning’  motive  is  to  be  seen  on  a coin  of  Commodus7 
representing  the  youthful  Herakles  in  the  same  position  as  our  figure,  but  holding  a 
club  and  a skin  in  the  left  hand.  A coin  of  the  Brettii  8 uses  the  motive  for  a young 
hero  who  carries  lance  and  chlamys  in  his  left  hand. 

The  extant  modifications  in  sculpture — for  Triptolemos  (?),  Adonis  (?),  Dionysos, 
and  Hermes — may  be  mostly  referred  to  the  good  period  of  Greek  art.  Specially 
interesting  is  a coin  of  Troezene,9  which  evidently  reproduces  a statue  of  the  city.  It 
supplies  a much-needed  restoration  for  the  Hermes  torso  in  Rome  mentioned  above. 
The  motive  is  that  of  the  victorious  boy,  only  that  chlamys  and  kerykeion  are  held  in 
the  left  hand  ; the  right  is  brought  close  to  the  head,  and  is  empty.  The  Eleusinian 
figure  does  not,  then,  stand  alone  as  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  graceful  motive  of  the 
victorious  boy  was  adapted  for  representations  of  a religious  character  to  be  set  up 
in  Greek  sanctuaries.  Finally  some  gems  show  that  the  essential  features  of  this 
beautiful  motive  reappear  in  other  representations  of  the  athletic  circle.10 

1 ’E (prifj..  apx ■ 1S90,  Taf.  io,  n.  (Philios,  p.  207  scq.)  The  body  was  found  on  the  procession  street  between 
the  Propylaia  and  the  Telesterion,  the  head  a little  farther  away. 

2 The  statue  is  no  Roman  copy  ; judging  from  the  workmanship,  it  appeared  to  me  to  belong  to  the  fourth 
century  n.c.  It  may  come  from  the  Praxitelean  circle,  from  the  period  in  which  the  master  was  an  enthusiastic 
follower  of  Polykleitos  (cf.  infra,  p.  317). 

3 Mus.  Torlonia,  37.  The  torso  unrestored  : the  puntello  for  the  left  arm  is  at  the  usual  place. 

4 Villa  Albani,  222,  1 Meleagro. ’ Head  foreign  ; arms  and  neck  restored. 

5 Mus.  Torlonia,  22.  Only  the  torso  (including  the  right  thigh)  is  ancient  : the  nebris  is  only  indicated  in 
low  relief  on  the  back. 

3 Museo  delle  Terme,  in  the  cloister  garden.  Proportions  of  torso  correspond  with  the  other  copies.  Torso 
unrestored,  and  the  greater  portion  of  the  thighs  remains.  The  attitude  of  the  head  and  the  right  arm  as  usual. 

7 Frbhner,  MMaillons  Rom.  p.  123. 

8 Garrucci,  Le  Moneie,  Tav.  124,  13,  14.  The  youth  is  crowning  himself.  Garrucci’s  explanation  as  Pan  is 
wrong. 

Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  I’l.  GG.  xi.  p.  162.  Bronze  coin  of  Septimius  Severus. 

10  Pasicn  in  Berlin  (pp.  2377  and  2378)  : athlete  holding  discus  in  his  lowered  left  hand,  the  right  hand, 
empty,  moved  towards  the  head.  Attitude  of  head  and  legs  as  in  the  statue. — Carnelian,  Brit.  Mus.  ( Cat . 0/ 


256 


POLYKLEITOS 


A famous  painting  by  Eupompos,1  of  Sikyon,  representing  a victor  cert  amine 
gymnico  palmam  tenens,  seems  to  have  been  directly  derived  from  the  Polykleitan 

statue.  The  youth  holds  a palm-branch  in  his 
left  hand,  and  the  head  is  not  bent,  but  in  an 
upright  attitude  more  appropriate  to  a painting. 
Eupompos  seems  to  have  followed  the  same  ten- 
dency in  painting  as  Polyklcitos  in  plastic  art. 
When  Polyldeitos  was  at  the  end  of  his  career, 
and  his  disciples  were  beginning  to  migrate  to 
Sikyon,  Eupompos  founded  in  that  city  a school 
of  painting  on  much  the  same  lines  as  the  school 
of  bronze  statuary  founded  by  Polyklcitos.  It  is 
therefore  not  surprising  that  Eupompos  should 
have  followed  Polykleitos  very  closely.  Invention 
was  in  any  case  not  his  strong  point. 

This  beautiful  Polykleitan  motive  seems  to 
have  been  adopted  even  by  a modern  painter : 
the  Christ  rising  from  the  tomb  by  Fra  Barto- 
lomeo in  the  Pitti  Palace  2 so  strikingly  recalls  it 
that  it  is  probable  the  artist  had  seen  one  of 
the  copies  of  the  statue. 


The  same  position  of  the  feet  visible  on  the 
Kyniskos  basis,  and  which  we  found  to  be  that 
of  the  ‘boy  crowning  himself’  preserved  in  the 
Wcstmacott  statue  and  its  replicas,  occurs  on 
two  other  bases  at  Olympia,  which  probably  sup- 
ported statues  of  the  Polykleitan  school.  These 
are  the  basis  in  the  form  of  an  astragalos  (p.  249, 
note  2),  and  the  basis  of  Ilellanikos  of  Lepreon,3 
who  as  a boy  was  victorious  in  the  boxing  contest 
(01.  89  = 424  B.C.)  The  footmarks  are  very  similar 
to  those  of  the  Kyniskos  ; here  also  the  boy  was 
represented  life-size  : the  left  foot,  firmly  placed 
on  the  ground,  was  22  cm.  long;4  the  right  was 
fig.  106.— Figure  from  iidefonso  group  (Madrid).  set  back  and  rested  on  the  ball  ; the  stride  was 

longer  than  the  stride  of  the  Kyniskos  and  of  the 
‘ boy  crowning  himself,’  and  the  right  foot  was  more  to  the  side  (the  distance  from 


Gems,  1S33)  ; the  youth  holds  the  wreath  in  the  lowered  left  hand,  and  with  the  right  he  leads  a horse  by  the 
bridle  ; position  of  head  and  legs  as  in  the  statue  ; a victor  with  his  horse.  Gem,  Cades,  Cl.  iv.  I1,  46  ; the  left 
hands  holds  a long  palm-branch,  the  right  is  raised  and  placed  on  an  urn  over  a fountain. 

1 Milchhofer,  in  Arch.  Studien  H.  Braun  dargebr.  1893,  p.  62  scq.,  maintained  the  opinion  that  the  athlete 
putting  a crown  on  his  head  with  the  right  hand  and  holding  a palm  in  the  left,  who  is  repeated  frequently  and 
with  many  variations  in  relief  and  painting,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  work  of  Eupompos.  This  is  no  doubt  correct. 
But  the  essential  features  of  this  composition  as  seen  in  their  simplest  form  in  some  of  the  replicas  (cf.  p.  250, 
note  5)  are  those  of  this  Polykleitan  statue,  which  therefore  must  have  afforded  the  model  for  the  painter  s work. 

2 Bruckmann,  Klassischer  Bilderschatz , No.  373. 

3 Arch.  Ztg.  1878,  p.  88,  No.  138.  Treu  has  rightly  observed  that  the  inscription  only  survives  in  its  restored 
condition,  Arch.  Ztg.  18791  P-  208. 

4 The  length  of  the  foot  can  be  exactly  calculated,  as  beyond  the  depression  for  the  main  part  of  the  foot 
the  outline  of  the  toes  is  still  visible. 


ATHLETE  AT  PETWORTH 


257 


the  left  heel  to  the  ball  of  the  right  foot  being  about  245  mm.)  In  exterior  the 
basis  is  very  like  those  of  Polykleitos  and  his  circle  ; the  artist  is  not  named. 

Among  surviving  statues  there  is  no  doubt  that  one  figure  of  the  Ildefonso1 
group,  that  of  a boy  wearing  a wreath  (Fig.  106),  should  be  reckoned  as  a work  akin 
to  the  statue  under  discussion.  In  the  position  of  the  legs  it  corresponds  exactly, 
and  in  the  attitude  of  the  head  approximately,  to  the  Westmacott  statue,  but  the 
arms  are  different  ; the  right  hand  hung  down,  the  left  was  raised.  The  head  is  of 
purely  Polykleitan  style,  very  like  the  Doryphoros  in  the  hair  and  the  modelling  of 
the  forehead,  while  in  expression  and  formation  of  the  lower  part  of  the  face  it  stands 
very  near  the  best  copies  of  the  ‘ boy  crowning  himself.’  The  eyes  look  modestly 
to  the  ground.  In  the  original,  the  raised  left  hand  may  have  touched  the  wreath 
which  it  had  just  placed  on  the  head,  and  the  right  may  have  held  a fillet.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  body  is  much  softer  and  feebler  than  we  have  any  right  to  presuppose 
was  ever  the  case  in  Polykleitan  works.  We  may  conjecturally  charge  the  copyist 
with  the  alteration,  and  assume  that  the  original  was  by  Polykleitos.  I know  no 
other  replica  of  this  work. 

We  possess  still  another  interesting  Polykleitan  statue  of  an  athlete  with  the  same 
pose  of  the  feet  as  that  shown  by  the  Kyniskos  basis,  i.e.  with  the  weight  on  the  left 
leg  and  the  right  foot  drawn  back  ; but  the  head  is  not  turned,  as  in  the  other  statues 
which  fit  the  basis,  to  the  side  of  the  free  leg,  but  according  to  the  ordinary  norm,  to 
the  side  which  supports  the  weight.  The  work  survives  only  in  one  copy,  the  1 Oil- 
pourer  ’ at  Petworth  House  in  Sussex  (Fig.  107,  after  a photograph  from  the  original).2 
The  statue  is  remarkable  more  for  excellent  preservation  than  for  good  workmanship. 
The  head  and  both  arms,  even  the  right  hand  with  the  globular  aryballos,  are 
ancient ; the  legs  only  are  restored  from  below  the  knee.3  The  tree-stem,  with  the 
two  objects  (probably  boxing  pads)  hanging  on  it,  is  also  ancient.  The  right  leg 
from  below  the  knee,  reckoning  by  the  surviving  knee-joint,  was  drawn  farther  back 
than  the  restorer  has  assumed,  and  was  in  the  full  ‘walking’  position.  The  whole 
figure  ought  to  be  tilted  a little  more  forward.  The  athlete  is  past  boyhood  ; he 
is  an  ephebe,  the  forms  of  the  body  being  distinctly  more  powerful  than  in  the 
‘ boy  crowning  himself.’ 4 

Polykleitan  style  is  unmistakable,  especially  in  the  head.5  Above  the  forehead 
there  is  the  characteristic  symmetrical  parting  of  the  hair  just  as  in  the  Doryphoros. 
The  forehead  is  divided  horizontally,  and  modelled  like  the  forehead  of  the  Doryphoros  ; 
the  eyes  are  purely  Polykleitan.  The  lower  part  of  the  face,  with  the  slightly  open 
mouth,  is  most  like  the  Dresden  athlete  which  we  are  presently  to  discuss  (Plate  XII.) 
In  bodily  formation,  too,  our  statue  resembles  this  athlete,  though  the  forms  are 
more  powerful  to  correspond  to  the  advance  in  age.  On  the  other  hand,  a great 
interval  separates  it  from  the  ripe  adult  forms  of  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumenos. 

1 For  literature  cf.  Friederichs-Wolters,  1665  ; Mttseo  Espagnol,  ix.  p.  217  seq.  with  plate  ; Hauser,  Neuattische 
Reliefs,  184  ; E.  Bethe  in  Arch.  Anz.  1893,  p.  S.  The  raised  left  arm  with  the  torch  is  certainly  a restoration — 
cf  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  154. 

2 Described  by  Michaelis,  Anc.  Marb.  in  Gt.  Brit.  p.  601,  No.  9.  The  statue  had  been  published  before 
in  Bracci,  Memorie  degli  Incisori,  i.  PI.  26  to  p.  293,  ‘ Atleta  in  Londra.’ 

3 The  only  other  restorations  are  the  end  of  the  nose  with  right  nostril  and  the  projecting  finger  of  the  left 
hand.  The  head  has  not  been  worked  over. 

4 The  pubes  is  beginning  to  grow  : it  is  formed  of  two  symmetrical  pairs  of  curls  on  either  side.  The 
undeveloped  pubes  here  only  characterizes  the  youthful  time  of  life,  and  is  totally  different  from  the  small  pubes 
which  appears  on  adult  figures  of  the  fourth  century. 

5 Michaelis,  loc.  cit. 


L L 


Fig;  107.-  Athlete  in  the  collection  at  Petworth  House  (Sussex). 


ATHLETES  POURING  OIL 


259 


The  abdomen  with  the  flat  navel,  the  chest  modelled  in  large  planes,  the  hollowed 
gluteus — all  are  true  Polykleitan  traits.  In  the  bronze  the  nipples  would  be  inlaid  ; in 
imitation  of  this  technique  the  copyist  has  surrounded  them  with  a ring.  The  work- 
manship is  poor  on  the  whole,  the  hair  is  carelessly  done,  without  detail.  We  may 
hope  that  a better  copy  will  some  day  come  to  light. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  intention  of  the  motive  we  must  first  look  at  the 
other  extant  statues  representing  athletes  pouring  oil.  Hitherto  they  have  been  all 
incorrectly  classed  together  as  ‘replicas’  or  ‘copies’  of  the  same  original,1  although 
some  of  them  have  merely  the  essential  features  in  common — features  which  are  due 
more  to  the  nature  of  the  subject  than  to  the  invention  of  any  one  artist.  Several 
red-figured  vase-paintings  of  severe  style,2  earlier  than  any  of  the  statues,  show  from 
their  realistic  representations  of  scenes  in  the  palaestra  that  it  was  a well-established 
custom  to  hold  the  round  aryballos  high  in  the  right  hand  and  pour  the  anointing 
oil  from  it  into  the  left  hand,  which  was  placed  horizontally  across  the  body.  With 
regard  to  the  attitude,  accordingly,  the  statues,  naturally  enough,  coincide.  The 
action  necessitates  the  weight  of  the  figure  being  thrown  on  the  left  leg,  for  the  left 
arm  must  be  held  as  still  as  possible  to  catch  the  oil,  and  the  head  must  be  turned 
towards  the  left.  Now  all  these  common  features  simply  grow  out  of  the  subject 
chosen.  Given  the  subject,  however,  we  may  distinguish  the  following  different 
renderings. 

First  the  Munich  statue,3  of  which  there  are  three  other  replicas.4  The 
conception,  though  full  of  life,  is  expressed  by  a somewhat  hard  and  angular 
movement.  The  upper  part  of  the  body  leans  back  too  straightly  and  stiffly,  the 
definite  forward  bend  of  the  head  produces  a harsh  effect.  The  bodily  forms  are 
simple,  spare,  and  dry.  Brunn  noticed  the  analogy  to  the  Marsyas  of  Myron,5 6 
and  this  analogy  undoubtedly  exists  not  only  in  the  conception  of  the  swift, 
momentary  action  but  in  the  separate  details  of  the  attitude.  As  the  head-type,  too, 
may  be  considered  to  be  a development  from  Myron,  we  are  justified  in  suggesting 
that  Lykios,  the  son  and  pupil  of  Myron,  was  the  author  of  this  work.  We  know  that 
he  was  working  about  440  B.C.,c  and  this  is  probably  the  date  of  the  statue. 

An  entirely  different  creation,  not  at  all,  as  has  been  asserted,  a remodelled  copy 
of  the  preceding,7  has  survived  in  the  Dresden  torso.8  It  has  several  replicas,  some  of 
them  better  and  with  the  head  preserved.9  Only  those  features  characteristic  of  the 

1 e.g.  Wolters,  Gipsabg.  Nos.  462 — 464. 

2 Cf.  those  cited  by  Bloch,  Rom.  Mitth.  1S92,  p.  88,  and  especially  Arch.  Ztg.  1879,  Taf.  4;  Hartwig, 
Meisterschalen,  p.  570. 

3 Friederichs -Wolters,  Gipsabg.  462;  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkni.  Nos.  132,  134,  135. 

4 A restored  torso  in  the  cortile  of  the  Palazzo  Mattei  (Matz-Duhn,  1025  ; Clarac,  940  B,  2398  A).  The 
spareness  of  the  forms  is  well  reproduced,  but  not  so  well  as  in  the  Munich  copy.  A torso  has  lately  come  from 
Rome  to  Dresden  which,  although  in  bad  preservation,  is  certainly  an  exact  copy  of  the  Munich  statue — Arch. 
Anz.  1894,  p.  26,  6.  A third  very  much  restored  replica  in  the  Pal.  Pitti  (Dutschke,  25). 

5 Ann.  d.  Inst.  1879,  204. 

6 Klein’s  suggestion  ( Oesterr.  Mitth.  1891,  6 seq.)  that  the  encrinomenos  of  Alkamenes  (Plin.  xxxiv.  § 72) 
was  an  enchriomenos  (i-yxpi6p.evos),  and  similar  to  the  Munich  Oil-pourer  (it  would  have  been  better  to  say  to  the 
Dresden),  is  not  tenable.  Cf.  Overbeck,  Gesch.  d.  Plastik,  4th  ed.  i.  386.  I cannot  agree  with  Sauer  ( Festschrift 
fur  Overbeck,  p.  28)  in  seeing  a resemblance  between  the  head  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes  and  that  of  the 
Munich  Oil-pourer. 

7 Brunn’s  assumption  (loc.  cit.  217  seq.)  rests  on  a false  notion  of  the  character  of  the  surviving  copies.  (Cf. 
above,  on  the  Diadumenoi. ) 

8 Friederichs-Wolters,  463  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  Nos.  133,  134. 

9 The  Museo  Torlonia  contains  a good  torso  (Plate  122,  No.  476),  with  bad  restorations  ; the  right  leg  is 
completely  modern.  There  is  a replica  in  the  Palazzo  Pitti  (Dutschke,  ii.  22),  with  unbroken  head,  although 
the  whole  figure  is  poor,  and  has  been  worked  over.  Both  legs  are  preserved.  In  Rome,  in  front  of  the  Villa 


26o 


POLYKLEITOS 


subject  are  the  same  as  in  the  Munich  type  ; everything  else  is  different.  The  hard  effect 
has  disappeared.  The  attitude  is  quieter  and  more  natural,  but  lacks  the  fire  and 
energy  that  distinguish  the  other  composition.  The  upper  part  of  the  body  is 
inclined  slightly  forward,  the  head  is  less  bent  than  in  the  Munich  statue  ; the  legs 
are  closer  together  and  more  in  repose  ; the  weight  of  the  body  rests — as  the  subject 
requires — on  the  left  leg,1  the  right  leg  is  placed  to  the  side  and  slightly  advanced, 
the  heel  being  somewhat  raised.2  The  attitude  thus  becomes  lighter  and  more 
graceful.  The  bodily  forms  are  powerful  and  of  adult  growth,  a great  contrast  to 
the  spareness  of  the  other  work.  The  modulations  of  the  whole  muscular  system 
are  indicated  by  a number  of  finer  details,  altogether  absent  in  the  other  statue. 
The  head  is  covered  with  short  curls,  the  flesh  of  the  face  is  full  and  firm,  the 
impression  of  power  being  heightened  by  the  indication  of  whiskers  and  by  the  very 
prominent  forehead,  from  which  the  hair  is  brushed  upwards.  Unfortunately  there 
is  no  good  copy  of  the  head  ; its  pure  Attic  character  is  however  undoubted  ; in  spite 
of  the  coarser  workmanship,  it  is  allied  to  the  standing  Diskobolos  ascribed  to 
Alkamenes  (p.  90).  The  full  plump  forms  of  the  body  also  recall  this  Diskobolos, 
but  the  differences  are  such  as  to  suggest  another  artist.  Certain  details  like  the 
formation  of  the  chest  and  the  navel,  as  well  as  the  attitude,  make  me  think  that 
this  work  is  by  the  artist  of  the  Florentine  athlete  which  we  are  shortly  to 
discuss.  This  artist  must  be  sought  for  among  Attic  masters  of  the  end  of  the  fifth 
or  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 

There  are  some  few  statues  under  life-size  which  are  akin  in  motive  and, 
generally,  in  style  to  the  work  last  described,3  without  being  copies  of  it.  They 
are  to  be  referred  to  different  unimportant  originals  derived  from  the  one  prototype. 

Other  repetitions  of  the  motive  on  a small  scale  are  to  be  found  in  terra-cotta 
statuettes  from  Myrina,4  on  Greek  reliefs,5  and  on  gems.0  These  do  not  aim  at 
reproducing  any  particular  statue  ; they  are  simply  instances  of  the  general  influence 
exerted  by  a widely  known  and  famous  plastic  motive.  As  they  are  most  nearly 
related  to  the  Dresden  type,  we  may  conclude  that  this  was  the  most  popular. 

In  contrast,  then,  to  the  Dresden  and  Munich  statues,  which  are  both  derivatives 
of  Attic  art,  we  have  a third  new  and  significant  creation  of  the  Polykleitan  school  in 
the  ‘Oil-pourer’  of  Petworth.  Unlike  the  Attic  statues,  the  Polykleitan  conception 

Borghese,  on  the  right,  is  a replica  with  an  unbroken  antique  head  in  very  bad  preservation.  The  chin  and  the 
upper  part  of  the  head  with  the  pointed  cap  are  new  ; there  is  a breakage  through  the  face. 

1 In  the  Dresden  copy  the  back  part  of  the  left  foot  is  ancient,  but  it  is  plain  from  the  original  that  the  left 
heel  ought  to  be  not  raised  but  on  the  ground.  (The  remains  of  the  old  plinth  are  planed  away  under  the  sole  of 
the  foot.) 

2 Thus  in  the  Pal.  Pitti  copy,  where  the  foot  is  old.  In  the  Borghese  and  Dresden  copies  it  is  wrongly 
restored  flat  on  the  ground. 

3 Statue  in  Turin,  Friederichs- Welters,  464  ; the  head  broken  but  antique.  It  differs  from  the  Munich 
statue  and  from  the  other  types  ; it  is  a poor,  insignificant  work.  Further,  statue  in  Cassel  (ii.  1)  ; the  head 
belongs  to  a replica  of  the  Polykleitan  ‘ Narkissos’  (cf.  infra)  ; no  pubes;  rounded  forms  ; left  hand  ancient. 
Finally,  two  of  the  small  athletes  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo  (Helbig,  Museums,  41 — 45  ; Rom.  Mitth.  vii.  93).  The 
head  of  No.  99  is  ancient,  but  belongs  to  a reduced  replica  of  the  Florentine  athlete  ; No.  103  has  a modern  plaster 
head.  These  two  statues  might  be  reduced  inexact  copies  of  the  Dresden  type. 

4 B.  C.  H.  1886,  PI.  12  ; Pottier  and  Reinacb,  NRrop.  de  Myrina,  PL  41,  3 ; p.  450  seq.  A second  copy 
(with  reversed  sides)  in  the  Coll.  Misthos.  in  the  National  Museum  at  Athens. 

5 Sybel,  Catalogue,  534  (Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1798),  grave-relief  of  the  third  to  second  century.  The 
raised  right  hand  is  empty  ; it  was  left  to  the  spectator  to  supply  an  aryballos  in  imagination.  The  same  motive 
occurs  on  a fragment  of  relief  from  the  south  slope  of  the  Akropolis  (only  the  upper  part  preserved  ; the  raised 
right  hand  empty  ; the  left  lies  flat  on  the  stomach). 

6 Stone  of  Cneius,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1888,  Taf.  10,  12,  p.  315.  Also  Tolken,  vi.  107,  and  Cades,  iv.  F,  73, 
and  a stone  in  Dr.  Dressel’s  possession.  I no  longer  hold  the  opinion  [Jahrb.,  loc.  cit.)  that  the  gems  go  back  to 
the  Polykleitan  Petworth  type.  They  correspond  most  nearly  to  the  Dresden  type. 


APOXYOMENOS 


261 


begins  with  the  walking  motive,  although  this  is  as  little  appropriate  to  the  chief 
motive  of  the  figure  as  it  is  to  the  representation  of  an  athlete  binding  a fillet  about 
his  head  or  putting  on  a wreath.  For  pouring  oil  a firm  steady  position  is 
indispensable  ; to  do  it  while  walking  along  is  not  natural — though  it  is  just  what  we 
should  expect  from  Polykleitos.  The  youth  is  not  giving  his  mind  to  what  he  is 
doing  ; he  bends  his  head  gracefully  and  modestly,  thus  forming  a harmonious  flow 
of  line  as  in  other  statues  of  Polykleitan  style  ; but  he  looks  out  into  the  distance 
instead  of  fixing  his  eyes  on  the  hand  into  which  the  oil  is  dropping.  The  right  arm 
is  only  raised  halfway,  much  less  than  in  the  two  other  statues.  We  have  seen  that 
when  Polykleitos  does  raise  the  arm  high,  as  in  the  Amazon  and  in  the  ‘boy  crowning 
himself,’  he  makes  the  bowed  head  fill  the  empty  corner  formed  by  the  arm  ; this 
could  not  be  done  here,  because  the  head  had  to  look  to  the  left,  hence  the  arm  must 
not  be  raised  so  high.  It  is  true  that  this  change  takes  away  from  the  animation 
of  the  figure,  but  it  was  the  only  way  to  obtain  a graceful  flow  of  line.  From  the 
right  elbow  the  line  rises  nearly  straight  to  the  crown  of  the  head.  Again,  the  whole 
arm  is  so  placed  that  it  falls  as  nearly  as  possible  in  one  plane  with  the  body,  thus 
avoiding  entirely  the  projection  towards  the  front  which  the  arm  must  have  formed 
in  the  other  statues.  We  noticed  a similar  intention  in  the  Diadumcnos  of 
Polykleitos. 

Now  pouring  oil  is  an  action  far  too  energetic  and  requiring  far  too  close 
attention  to  be  appropriately  rendered  in  the  Polykleitan  manner,  and  Polykleitos — if  he 
and  not  one  of  his  pupils  is  the  author — seems  to  me  to  be  less  happy  than  usual  in 
this  figure.  The  material  content  of  the  motive  is  not  satisfying,  and  the  formal 
beauty  is  not,  as  in  other  statues,  carried  far  enough  to  help  us  to  forget  the  deficiency. 
Polykleitos  is  here  entering  a region  familiar  to  Attic  art,  but  completely  strange 
to  him.  We  may  presume  that  he  knew  the  older  of  the  two  Attic  creations,  and 
that  he  was  perhaps  attracted  through  it  to  the  theme.  The  two  statues  we  have 
assigned  conjecturally  to  Lykios  and  Polykleitos  must,  however,  have  come  close 
together  in  time  ; the  ‘ oil-pourer  ’ of  Polykleitos  is  at  any  rate  older 
than  his  Diadumenos. 

In  speaking  of  the  second  Attic,  i.e.  the  so-called  Dresden  type  of 
‘ oil-pourer,’  we  had  occasion  to  cite  the  Florence  athlete  as  being  akin 
in  style.  Before  closing  the  present  inquiry  a few  words  must  be  said 
about  this  figure,  as  it  has  of  late  been  interpreted  as  an  athlete 
pouring  oil  from  a lekythos  held  in  his  right  hand  into  an  aryballos 
held  in  his  left.1  Such  an  action  is  however  unparalleled,  unclassical,  and, 
above  all,  absurd  for  an  athlete  to  be  engaged  in.  The  left  forearm  lay 
close  to  the  thigh,  and  the  right  crossed  the  abdomen  diagonally  in  the  direction  of  the 
left  hand  ;2  now  a gem  reproduced  in  Fig.  108  3 explains  this  attitude,  and  corresponds 
to  it  so  closely  that  we  may  conclude  it  is  an  imitation  of  the  original  of  the  statue. 
Moreover,  the  gem  belongs  to  that  class  of  convex  stones  which  has  already  afforded  us 
so  many  exact  copies  of  statues.4  The  figure  on  the  gem  holds  a strigil  in  both  hands, 


Fig.  108. — Apo- 
xyomenos  on 
a gem. 


1 Rom.  Mitth.  1892  (vii. ),  p.  Si  scq.  (Bloch).  The  only  possible  evidence  for  calling  the  statue  an  ‘oil-pourer’ 
at  all  is  the  existence  of  a statue  in  Paris  {loc.  cit.  p.  87  ; cf.  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  140)  under  life-size,  in  which 
the  left  hand,  which  is  ancient,  makes  a gesture  as  if  to  catch  oil  dropping  into  it.  But  this  small  statue  goes 
back  to  an  original  similar  to,  yet  quite  distinct  from,  the  Florence  athlete,  so  that  even  if  it  did  represent  an  ‘oil- 
pourer  ’ this  would  prove  nothing  with  regard  to  the  Florence  athlete. 

2 The  right  arm  is  restored  with  the  shoulder,  and  perhaps  had  quite  another  movement. 

3 Impression,  Cades,  iv.  F,  66  ; unquestionably  genuine.  Beside  the  athlete  stands  the  usual  hydria  with 

a palm-branch  and  a wreath  over  it.  4 Cf.  supra,  p.  137,  note  1 ; p.  163,  note  1. 


262 


POLYKLEITOS 


and  is  in  the  act  of  removing  the  dust  from  his  left  thigh  ; the  right  hand  holds  the  handle 
and  the  left  the  blade  of  the  strigil,  in  order  to  scrape  the  skin  with  more  energy. 
The  tension  in  the  muscles  of  the  upper  arm  is  appropriate  to  the  action.  The  youth 
is  quite  absorbed  in  what  he  is  doing.  The  leg  released  from  the  weight  of  the  figure 
is  placed  well  to  the  side  with  raised  heel.  This  attitude — a preparatory  stage  to 
the  Lysippian  scheme — -is,  as  I have  already  pointed  out,  very  near  akin  to  the 
type  of  the  Dresden  ‘ oil-pourer,’  and  so  is  the  full  and  muscular  formation  of 
the  body  with  all  its  characteristic  details  ; we  may  therefore 
assume  that  both  works  are  by  the  same  artist. 

The  Florence  statue,  then,  is  not  an  ‘ oil-pourer,’  but  an 
apoxyomenos , a destringens  se — a magnificent  work,  famous  even 
in  antiquity,  as  the  remains  of  several  copies  prove.1 

Polykleitos  too  was,  according  to  Pliny,  the  author  of  a 
destringens  se.  I can  trace  no  copy  of  this  work  in  statuary, 
but  I think  there  is  an  echo  of  it  in  a type  very  frequent  on 
gems  (Fig.  109).  If  this  be  so,  the  original  must  have  represented 
a youth  leaning  his  weight  on  the  left  leg  with  the  right  drawn 
back  in  the  ‘ walking  ’ motive.  The  right  forearm  is  stretched 
forward,  the  left  holds  the  strigil,  and  the  intention  is  to  cleanse 
the  under  side  of  the  right  arm.  The  whole  scheme  is  conceived  in  the  Polykleitan 
manner  ; the  act  of  scraping  is  subordinate  and  rules  the  composition  only  to  a 
limited  extent  ; the  pleasant  effect  of  the  ‘ walking’  attitude  is  evidently  the  principal 
thing  in  the  artist’s  eyes,  and  the  arms  are  very  little  removed  from  the  plane  of  the 
body.  The  number  and  remarkable  similarity  of  the  gem  designs  2 prove  that  they 
are  all  derived  from  one  definite  and  well-known  original. 


VI.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Pythokles. — Statue  of  a Boy  in  Dresden:  its 

A dap  tat  ions  and  Derivatives. 

In  the  former  section  we  took  the  Kyniskos  basis  as  our  starting-point. 
Another  series  of  statues  may  be  discussed  in  connexion  with  the  Pythokles  basis 
(7.  G.  B.  91). 

This  basis,  whose  upper  surface  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  Iio,3  is  remarkable,  not 
only  in  having  in  addition  to  the  older  first  inscription  a second  inscription  which  is  a 

1 A copy  of  the  head  in  Museo  Torlonia  (Taf.  22,  86),  worked  over  and  much  restored  ; neck  new,  bust 
not  belonging.  A better  copy  in  the  Hermitage,  No.  65  ; the  forehead  modelled  more  fully  and  carefully  than 
in  the  Florentine  example.  A reduced  copy  is  No.  105  in  Braccio  Nuovo  (cf.  supra , p.  260,  note  3 ; Rom. 
Mitth.  vii.  92).  The  head  is  genuine  but  wrongly  put  on  (the  neck  new) ; slight  workmanship,  but  a real 
copy.  Head,  No.  99,  Braccio  Nuovo.  Cf.  supra , p.  260,  note  3. 

2 The  stone  reproduced  from  a cast  in  Fig.  109  is  specially  good.  It  is  an  emerald-plasma  in  St.  Petersburg. 
A modern  paste  from  it  is  in  the  Stosch  collection,  wrongly  described  as  ancient  by  Tolken,  vi.  100.  Several 
smaller  ancient  replicas  in  the  Petersburg  collection  (Berlin  impressions,  22,  37,  emerald-plasma  ; 26,  34,  65  ; 29, 
21  ; 34,  65  ; 44,  10,  all  of  the  so-called  achatonyx  or  nicolo).  Other  replicas  in  Berlin,  Tolken,  vi.  99,  101, 
102  ; in  103  the  figure  is  seen  more  from  the  back  ; also  p.  2404  (convex  emerald-plasma).  From  other 
collections  cf.  Impronte  delP  Inst.  7,  73  ; Cades,  cl.  iv.  F,  65  ; in  Paris  (impressions  in  Berlin,  640),  with  the 
modern  inscription  Tvaiov  ; another  stone,  also  ancient,  with  the  same  modern  inscription,  Bracci,  Mem.  d. 
Incis.  i.  52  (cf.  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  iii.  317);  stone  of  the  Dressel  collection  ; paste  of  the  Bergau  collection  ; and  others. 
The  motives  of  all  these  gem  designs  correspond.  The  figure  also  occurs  in  a few  rare  instances  turned  to  the 
left,  when  the  sides  are  also  reversed  (thus  Tolken,  vi.  106  ; Cades,  cl.  iv.  F,  67  ; Impr.  del, V Inst.  6,  72  ; Paste 
Bergau). 

3 Drawn  by  Lribke  from  my  plan  of  the  block. 


Fig.  109.— Apoxyomenos 
on  a gem  (Hermitage). 


PYTHOKLES 


263 


restoration  of  the  earlier  one,  and  may  be  dated  in  the  first  century  B.C.,  but  in  having 
supported  two  different  statues  in  succession.  The  feet  of  the  earlier  statue  were 
riveted  into  circular  holes.  Behind  its  right  foot,  on  the  upper  surface  of  the  basis, 
was  inscribed  the  name  of  the  artist,  on  the  front  surface  the  name  of  the  victor. 
This  statue  must  have  been  carefully  detached  and  taken  away.  It  was  then 
replaced  by  another  with  a quite  different  standing  motive,  and  the  feet  of  which 
were  fastened  into  hollows  in  the  stone  filled  with  molten  lead.  This  second  statue 
appears  to  have  looked  in  an  opposite  direction 
to  the  first.  The  renewal  of  the  inscriptions  pro- 
bably took  place  at  the  same  time  that  the  new 
figure  was  set  up,  for  the  new  inscriptions  record- 
ing the  names  of  the  artist  and  of  the  victor 
start  in  a line  with  its  right  foot.  Subsequently 
this  later  statue  was  roughly  broken  away,  prob- 
ably at  the  destruction  of  Olympia.  From  these 
facts  we  gather  that  the  genuine  statue  by  Poly- 
kleitos  was  taken  away  from  Olympia  as  early  as 
the  first  century  B.C.,  and  that  it  was  replaced — 
not  by  a copy — but  by  an  entirely  different  figure, 
which  was  then  inscribed  as  a work  by  the  famous 
artist. 

Now  there  has  been  lately  found  in  Rome, 
and  assigned  to  the  period  of  Hadrian  or  the 
Antonines,  a basis  actually  inscribed  with  the  names 
of  Pythokles  the  Olympian  victor  and  of  Poly- 
kleitos  the  artist.1  It  is  true  that  the  footmarks  on  this  basis  fit  neither  of  the 
statues  that  once  stood  on  the  ‘ Pythokles  ’ basis  at  Olympia,  but  Petersen  has 
shown  that  these  footmarks  are  due  to  some  earlier  use  of  the  basis,  and  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Pythokles.  This  Pythokles  statue  in  Rome  may  possibly  have  been  identical 
with  the  original  statue  by  Polykleitos  which  disappeared  from  Olympia  in  the  first 
century  B.C.,  and  which  was  doubtless  brought  to  Rome.  It  is,  however,  more  likely 
that  the  existing  basis  with  its  statue  was  only  a copy  of  the  famous  original  by 
Polykleitos,  and  that  this  original  was  placed  to  more  advantage  in  some  other  part  of 
Rome  ; for  the  basis  with  its  statue  was  set  up  by  a club  of  athletes,  whose  ambition 
was  to  ornament  their  curia  with  figures  of  victors  in  gymnastic  contests,  but  who 
probably  could  not  afford  to  buy  originals. 

The  genuine  Pythokles  of  Polykleitos  stood  firmly  on  the  right  foot.  The 
length  of  the  foot,  calculated  from  the  circular  holes,  is  about  24  cm.  ; the  left 
foot  was  set  back  and— herein  is  the  distinctive  trait — -well  turned  out  ; the  left 
knee  accordingly  must  also  have  been  turned  quite  obliquely  outwards.2  This  posi- 
tion is  natural  only  when  the  whole  attention  of  the  figure  is  directed  to  the  left 
side,  i.e.  when  the  head  is  turned  to  the  left,  and  the  left  hand  is  occupied  with 
something. 

Among  the  works  represented  by  copies  which  could  come  into  question  there 
is  one,  surviving  in  two  replicas  in  Rome  and  Munich,  which  best  reproduces  all  the 

1 Bull,  della  Commiss.  Covntn.  di  Roma,  1891,  p.  280  seq.,  Tav.  x.  1 ; Petersen  in  Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  p.  304  seq. 

2 On  renewed  examination  of  the  basis  in  the  summer  of  1894,  it  seemed  to  me  that,  since  the  left  foot  also 
had  a hole  for  the  ball,  it  was  more  probable  the  statue  stood  firm  on  both  soles  ; in  this  case  however  the  left 
must  have  been  the  supporting  leg. 


Fig.  i 10. — Basis  of  the  statue  of  Pythokles  in 
Olympia. 


264 


POLYKLEITOS 


conditions  of  the  Pythokles  basis  (Fig.  hi).1  it  is  a youthful  athlete,  who  stands  in 
the  position  required  by  the  basis,  and  whose  feet  correspond  in  scale  to  the  foot- 
marks,2 The  head  is  turned  to  the  left,  the  left  forearm  is  stretched  forward,  while 


Fig.  hi. — Athlete  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo  (Vatican). 

the  hand  holds  a globular  aryballos.  The  right  arm  hangs  simply  down,  and  blends 
with  the  contour  of  the  body  ; the  hand  perhaps  held  a fillet.3 

As  regards  the  time  of  life  represented,  this  youth  is  older  than  the  ‘ boy  crowning 

1 A.  In  Rome,  Vatican,  Braccio  Nuovo,  No.  101  (Fig.  111)  ; cf.  Helbig,  Museums , on  Nos.  41—45 — ‘reveals 
a close  kinship  with  the  Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos.’  Photograph  in  German  Inst,  at  Rome.  Legs  and  basis 
ancient  ; arms  and  neck  restored  ; the  head  is  ancient  and  belongs . to  the  statue,  only  it  is  placed  leaning  a little 
too  far  back. — B.  In  Munich  Glypt.  No.  303  ; Clarac,  858,  2175  ; black  marble  ; left  leg  restored,  and  the  foot 
is  wrongly  placed  flat  on  the  ground  to  the  side,  instead  of  being  drawn  back.  The  head,  both  arms,  and  the  left 
hand  with  the  oil-flask  are  ancient  (A  is  restored  from  B). 

2 On  A I measured  24  cm. 

3 The  right  hand  which  survives  in  B held  some  light  object,  probably  a fillet  ; in  A the  hand  is  wrongly 
restored  ; it  simply  hung  straight  down. 


STATUE  OF  A BOY 


265 


himself,’  and  younger  than  the  Doryphoros  ; he  is  very  near  in  age  to  the  ‘ oil-pourer.’ 1 
The  comparison  gives  us  some  notion  of  how  nicely  the  gradations  from  boyhood 
to  adolescence  were  shaded  off  in  the  Polykleitan  school. 

This  work  stands  very  near  the  Doryphoros,  not  only  in  the  stage  of  growth 
represented  but  in  the  style  and  mode  of  expression.  The  hair  is  treated  in  the 
same  flat,  spare,  and  restrained  manner,  divided  into  large  strands  which  cling  close 
to  the  head  ; over  the  middle  of  the  forehead  is  the  same  symmetric  parting.2  The 
hair  leaves  the  ears  free.  The  forehead  too,  with  its  horizontal  division,  and  the  whole 
expression  of  the  head,  which  is  not  bent  but  freely  turned  to  the  side,  show  a special 
likeness  to  the  Doryphoros.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  body,  except  that  the 
forms  are  less  powerful.  We  must  assign  the  work  to  a period  not  far  removed 
from  the  time  of  the  Doryphoros. 

The  motive  of  this  statue,  full  of  energy  and  character,  reaches  its  most  life- 
like development  in  the  Diomede  of  Kresilas.  The  action  of  the  Diomede  is  fully 
accounted  for  down  to  the  smallest  particulars  by  the  nature  of  the  subject.  The 
like  cannot  be  maintained  of  the  athlete  holding  the  aryballos.  Hence  we  may 
suppose  that  Polykleitos,  in  this  instance  also,  was  under  the  influence  of  a creation  of 
Kresilas.  He  saw  an  attractive  motive  (the  Diomede,  we  have  shown,  was  made  for 
Argos),  and  adapted  it  to  the  figure  of  an  athlete  without  troubling  himself  to  account 
for  the  attitude  on  internal  grounds.  I have  already  suggested  that  he  may  have  used 
the  Kresilaian  Amazon  in  like  manner  (p.  254).  Nor  were  the  motives  of  Diadumenos 
and  ‘oil-pourer’  his  own.  It  was  certainly  not  in  invention  that  lay  the  special  strength 
of  our  artist. 

A very  close  analogy  to  this  Roman  copy  of  a Polykleitan  statue  is  afforded  by 
an  admirable  small  original  work  from  Greece,  a bronze  statuette  now  in  Athens.3 4  It 
cannot  be  referred  to  the  master  himself,  for  it  differs  in  too  many  respects  from  the 
works  we  know  to  be  his,  and  is  besides  too  insignificant  in  character,  but  it  is  an 
excellent  specimen  of  school  work  from  his  earlier  period.  The  hair  is  more  uniform 
and  restrained  than  in  the  statue  we  last  discussed  ; the  head  is  peculiarly  heavy  ; the 
time  of  life  represented  is  that  of  the  Doryphoros,  but  the  forms  are  drier.  The  motive 
is  similar  to  the  preceding,  but  shows  more  repose  and  simplicity.  The  head  is  not 
turned,  but  only  bent  to  the  side,  and  the  left  knee  is  not  directed  outwards.  The  left 
arm  seems  to  have  been  raised,  and  was  perhaps  supported  ; the  right  arm  hung  down. 
A small  marble  figure  of  very  poor  late  workmanship  from  Athens,  in  the  British 
Museum/  markedly  resembles  this  bronze. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  another  admirable  work  which  we  may  trace  to 
Polykleitos  himself,  and  which  must  have  been  one  of  his  most  beautiful  creations. 
There  is  a well-preserved  copy  of  it  in  Dresden  (Plate  XII.  and  Fig.  112).5  A replica, 

1 The  pubes  is  not  indicated.  This  is  plain  in  A in  spite  of  the  plaster  covering  ; in  B the  membrtun  is 
preserved  intact. 

2 The  head  of  A is  much  better  and  more  carefully  worked  than  that  of  B,  but  they  are  copies  from  the 
same  original.  A well  reproduces  the  sharpness  of  the  bronze. 

3 Mon.  d.  Inst.  viii.  53;  Annali , 186S,  316. ;qq.  (Kekule)  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  280  a;  presumably 
from  Sikyon.  The  arms,  now  missing,  were  put  on  separately. — Lange  ( Fremstilling  af  Menneskesk.  419)  is,  I 
think,  wrong  in  supposing  the  figure  to  be  earlier  than  Polykleitos. 

4 A.  H.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculpt,  i.  502,  ‘Doryphoros.’ 

5 Becker,  Augusteum,  Taf.  88  ; [ Clarac,  948,  2437;  Hettner,  Catalogue,  4th  ed.  No.  90,  ‘Doryphoros.’ 
Mentioned  by  Michaelis,  Ann.  1878,  8,  among  the  ‘ variazioni  ’ of  the  Doryphoros;  by  Kekule,  Ann.  1868, 
316,  as  a replica  of  the  Athens  bronze  discussed  above;  by  Treu  in  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  57. — The  restored  left 
arm  is  now  taken  away.  Everything  else  is  ancient  except  the  left  upper  lip,  the  nose,  and  the  membritm.  The 

M M 


266 


POLYKLEITOS 


formerly  belonging  to  Cavaccppi,  is  probably  somewhere  in  England.1  Besides  these 
there  arc  two  torsos  in  Rome,2  and  three  replicas  of  the  head  alone  (in  Berlin,  the 
Vatican,  and  the  Coll.  Barracco).3 

Once  more  it  represents  a youthful  victor  with  the  feet  placed  as  on  the  Pythokdes 
basis,  except  that  the  left  foot  is  not  drawn  so  far  back,  and  the  toe  is  not  so  much 
turned  out.  In  accordance  with  this  modification  the  head  is  but  gently  turned  to  the 
left  and  inclined.  The  right  arm  again  hung  straight  down  beside  the  body  ;4  the  left 
upper  arm  is  directed  somewhat  to  the  side,  the  left  shoulder  is  a little  raised  and 
advanced,  so  that  the  front  of  the  upper  trunk  is  not  all  in  the  same  plane  ; this 
produces  an  animated  crossing  rhythm.  The  right  shoulder  is  not  drawn  back,  but 
held  in  a comfortable  natural  position  ; from  the  attitude  of  the  left  upper  arm  and 
from  the  absence  of  any  puntello  on  the  left  side  we  conclude  that  the  left  forearm 
was  advanced.  The  youth  was  holding  some  object  on  which  he  was  looking  down.5 
This  was  doubtless  nothing  but  a victor’s  fillet  or  some  simple  instrument  of  the 
palaestra.6  The  modest  reserve  expressed  by  the  attitude  of  the  head  seems  to  speak 
for  the  fillet.  For  just  this  modesty  and  reserve  on  the  part  of  the  victorious  athlete 
were  demanded  by  ancient  custom,  that  the  envy  of  gods  and  daemons  might  be 
appeased. 

The  time  of  life  represented  is  a new  variant  between  boy  and  ephebe.  The 
‘Dresden  athlete’ — so  we  may  call  the  type — is  older  than  the  ‘ boy  crowning  him- 
self.’ The  formation  of  the  body  is  stronger  and  the  chest  is  fuller,  bearing  the  same 
proportion  to  the  lower  part  of  the  body  as  it  does  in  the  Doryphoros.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Dresden  athlete  is  more  youthful  and  delicately  formed  than  the  figure,  pre- 
sumably the  Pythokles,  which  we  discussed  above,  or  than  the  ‘ oil-pourer.’  It  is  a 
great  mistake  to  imagine  that  the  victor  statues  of  Polykleitos  were  all  made  upon  one 
pattern,  and  merely  repeated  the  proportions  and  modelling  of  the  Doryphoros  ; the 
latter  evidently  gave  the  ‘canon  ’ for  the  full-grown  male  figure  only. 

The  ‘ Dresden  boy  ’ bears  such  unmistakable  marks  of  the  personal  style  of 
Polykleitos  that  we  may  certainly  ascribe  it  to  the  master  himself,  and  it  probably 
belongs  to  his  later  period.7  It  stands  midway  between  the  Herakles  (discussed 
above,  p.  234)  and  the  Diadumenos,  and  is  closely  akin  to  both  works.  The  hair 
resembles  that  of  the  Herakles,  but  is  more  developed  in  style  ; the  asyvimetria  of  the 


head  was  never  broken.  Height  of  head  198  mm.,  length  of  face  156,  length  of  foot  253,  distance  between 
nipples  226. 

1 Cavaceppi,  Kaccolta,  iii.  5 ; Clarac,  866,  2204.  According  to  Cavaceppi,  in  the  possession  of  ‘ Giuseppe  ’ 
Nollekens  in  England  ; the  arms  and  the  armour  as  support  are  probably  restorations  ; in  other  respects  the  figure 
appears  to  be  a replica. 

2 a.  in  Museo  Torlonia,  No.  18.  Legs  and  arms  wrongly  restored,  head  antique  but  not  belonging  ; the 
torso  is  a good  replica  of  the  Dresden  statue. — b.  in  the  Vatican,  Museo  Lapidario,  124.  Torso. 

3 a.  in  Berlin,  Skidpt.  546.  A very  good  copy.  The  hair  corresponds  exactly  with  the  Dresden  replica. 
The  whole  upper  part  of  the  head  is  restored.  The  sharpness  of  the  bronze  original  is  imitated;  the  lips  are 
slightly  open,  but  do  not  show  the  teeth. — b.  Vatican,  Museo  Chiaramonti,  507  (Helbig,  Fiihrer , i.  No.  100).  A 
good  careful  copy  ; nose  and  neck  restored  ; edge  of  lips  sharp.  Mentioned  by  Flasch,  Ver/i.  d.  Philologenvers . 
1874,  p.  163  ; by  me  in  AnnaU,  1877,  203. — c.  Coll.  Barracco  (PI.  46).  A good  copy. 

4 Remains  of  puntello  on  the  right  thigh  of  the  Dresden  statue. 

6 Hettner  assumed  a spear,  because  formerly  all  Polykleitan  figures  were  supposed  to  be  variants  of  the 
‘ Doryphoros.’ 

6 On  a Panathenaic  prize  amphora  of  the  fourth  century  an  athlete  occurs  very  similar  to  the  Dresden  type. 
Tie  carries  a discus  in  his  left  hand  (Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  48  g,  10). 

7 Kalkmann  (Proportional  d.  Ges.  p.  55),  in  endeavouring  to  extract  results  from  his  rows  of  figures,  places 
these  and  other  statues  to  be  subsequently  discussed  (such  as  the  Pan,  the  ‘ Narkissos,’  the  ‘Idolino’)  in  the 
pre-Polykleitan  period  ; this  is  only  one  of  the  many  anachronisms  into  which  Kalkmann  has  been  induced 
by  his  figures. 


\ 


XII. 

Statue  of  a Boy. 


DRESDEN. 


■ 


' 


■ 


. 


. 


Printed  byA  Frisch, Berlin  W (Germany) 


Fig.  i i 2. — Head  of  the  boy’s  statue  in  Dresden.  (From  the  cast.) 


268 


POLYKLEITOS 


short  wisps  over  the  forehead,  which  occurs  first  in  the  Herakles,  is  here  more  pro- 
nounced. In  the  Herakles  the  hair  already  covered  the  upper  edge  of  the  ear;  here 
the  motive  is  accentuated,  and  the  ends  of  the  small  curls  veil  with  their  rich  variety 
the  whole  upper  part  of  the  car.  The  fashion,  here  so  charmingly  elaborated,  of 
separating  the  hair  into  numerous  narrow  strands  with  intertwining  ends  also  made 
its  first  appearance  in  the  Herakles.1  There  is  no  trace  of  it  in  the  Doryphoros. 

The  ‘Dresden  boy’  is  associated  with  the  Diadumenos  by  the  fuller  plastic  treat- 
ment of  the  hair.  In  both  there  is  a depression  on  the  crown  of  the  head,  while  the 
bunches  of  hair  radiating  from  the  crown — three  in  each  case — are  so  similar  as  to 
be  almost  identical  ; a sure  confirmation  of  our  theory  that  Polykleitos  is  the 
master  and  that  the  ‘ Dresden  boy  ’ comes  near  the  Diadumenos.  It  is  however 
certainly  the  earlier  of  the  two,  for  the  hair  still  lies  quite  close  to  the  skull,  and 
the  step  which  divides  the  Diadumenos  from  all  earlier  Polykleitan  works  has  not 
yet  been  taken. 

Further,  the  expression  of  the  head,  and  especially  the  formation  of  the  lower 
half  of  the  face  (Fig.  112),  indicate  a stage  preparatory  to  the  Diadumenos.  The 
modelling  here  is  softer,  rounder,  and  more  developed  than  in  the  earlier  works  of 
Polykleitos  ; the  full  lips,  the  folds  near  the  corner  of  the  mouth  and  nostrils,  the  some- 
what receding  chin,  and  the  expression  of  sweetness,  satiety,  almost  of  melancholy, 
mark  a decided  approach  to  the  head  of  the  Diadumenos.  We  can  better  understand 
the  place  of  the  latter  statue  in  the  development  of  Polykleitos  now  that  we  have  found 
a connecting  link  leading  up  to  it. 

In  studying  the  Diadumenos  we  recognized  the  influence  of  Attic  style  on 
Polykleitos,  and  suggested  Kresilas  as  its  source  (p.  243).  In  the  ‘ Dresden  boy  ’ this 
influence  is  beginning  to  be  felt,  for  it  exactly  explains  the  variations  from  the  older 
Polykleitan  type.  Not  only  the  formation  and  expression  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
face,  but  the  way  in  which  the  ends  of  hair  tangle  together,  are  clearly  inspired  by 
works  from  the  Myron-Kresilas  circle,  and  more  especially  by  the  Diomede.  But 
Polykleitos  has  not  altered  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  his  hair  technique  ; he 
entirely  ignores  the  short,  full  crisp  curls  of  Attic  work  ; in  the  ‘ Dresden  boy’  he  has 
arranged  the  hair  on  the  upper  part  of  the  head  practically  in  the  same  smooth 
layers  as  in  the  Doryphoros  ; only  in  the  Diadumenos  does  he  break  away  to  some 
degree  from  his  old  manner. 

The  body  of  the  ‘ Dresden  boy  ’ is  rendered  in  the  style  customary  to  Polykleitos  : 
eg.,  it  has  the  characteristic  flat  navel  with  the  deep  groove  below  it  and  the  hollow 
at  the  side  of  each  gluteus.  Compared  with  an  earlier  work,  such  as  the  ‘ boy  crowning 
himself,’  the  transitions  are  softer  and  more  rounded  ; this  is  more  than  usually 
noticeable  in  the  divisions  effected  by  the  straight  and  oblique  abdominal  muscles 
which  are  still  so  harsh  in  the  former  statue. 

The  ‘ Dresden  boy’  may  be  classed  among  the  happiest  efforts  of  Polykleitos.  The 
attitude  has  more  of  nature  and  truth  than  his  compositions  usually  manifest,  without 
being  the  less  beautiful  or  harmonious.  The  head  has  a charm  of  its  own  which  makes 
the  earlier  works  of  the  artist  seem  cold  and  formal,  and  which  is  unsurpassed  except 
by  the  Diadumenos. 

With  this  work  two  others  are  nearly  connected.  One  of  these  survives,  as  far 
as  I know,  only  in  one  copy,  now  in  St.  Petersburg  (Fig.  1 13)  ; 2 it  is  a figure  very  like 

1 Especially  behind  the  left  ear  in  the  Dresden  copy  of  Herakles. 

2 Guedeonow,  No.  304,  ‘ Mercure  5 ; also  apparently  cited  as  Hermes  by  Treu  {Arch.  Anz.  1889,  57).  Legs 


YOUTHFUL  ATHLETE 


269 


the  Dresden  boy.  The  position  of  the  feet  and  the  turn  of  the  head  are  the  same,  and 
here  too  the  right  arm  hangs  straight  down,  while  the  left  forearm  is  extended.  Yet 
the  shoulders  are  well  set  back 
in  the  usual  way ; the  body- 
forms  are  somewhat  more  youth- 
ful and  delicate.  The  head — to 
which  the  restorer  has  arbi- 
trarily added  wings — is  akin  to 
the  Dresden  figure,  but  the  hair 
is  fuller  and  more  curling  ; the 
personal  style  of  Polykleitos  is 
missing  ; the  hair  is  not  parted 
over  the  middle  of  the  forehead, 
nor  is  it  arranged  in  layers.  The 
ears  are  not  covered  by  the  hair. 

The  figure  undoubtedly  repre- 
sents a boy  victor  ; in  his  lowered 
right  hand  is  a fragment  of  an 
attribute.  The  restoration  as  a 
purse  is  quite  ridiculous  ; the 
fragment  is  a short  straight  piece 
not  round  in  section  but  rect- 
angular ; it  might  very  well  be 
the  handle  of  a strigil. 

I am  inclined  to  assign  this 
work  not  to  the  master  but  to 
one  of  his  pupils,  who  used  the 
Dresden  boy  as  his  prototype  ; 
not  only  the  head  but  the  body 
shows  a lack  of  the  real  personal 
manner  of  Polykleitos,  and  of 
all  the  finer  shades  of  individu- 
alization which  we  have  learned 
to  look  for  in  his  authenticated 
works. 

The  second  work  survives 
in  a great  number  of  copies,  and 
was  clearly  a favourite  and 
widely  known.  Being  only  two 
thirds  life-size,  it  was  suited  for 
the  decoration  of  private  houses.  F|G'  I13--Statue  of  a youth  (He™>‘age)- 

One  copy  shows  distinct  marks 

of  having  been  used  as  a figure  for  a fountain  in  a Roman  house.  The  statue 
represents  a divine  boy,  Pan  in  almost  human  form,  a subject  we  have  already 
met  with  in  an  original  of  the  Polyklcitan  circle  (p.  229).  I know  four  complete 


and  feet,  with  the  moulded  basis,  are  mostly  ancient  ; left  forearm  is  restored  ; right  hand  with  the  remains  of 
an  attribute  (wrongly  restored  as  a purse)  is  ancient.  The  neck  is  mostly  restored,  the  head  genuine  and  set  on 
almost  in  the  right  position  ; the  wings  are  a later  addition  placed  on  the  hair,  which  is  complete  without  them 
and  carefully  worked.  The  workmanship  is  not  older  than  the  time  of  Hadrian. 


2yo 


POLYKLEITOS 


copies,  and  six  replicas  of  the  head.1  The  statue  in  best  preservation  is  the  one  in 
Leyden  (Fig.  1 14). 

The  feet  are  placed  exactly  as  in  the  two  works  just  discussed,  and  the  head  is 
inclined  slightly  to  the  left  ; the  left  shoulder  is  rather  more  advanced  than  in  the 
Dresden  boy,  and  this  produces  a slight  turn  in  the  upper  part  of  the  body.  The  right 
hand  again  hangs  simply  down  holding  the  short  knotted  stick  ( \aryco/36\ov ) which 
was  commonly  used  in  hunting  the  hare,2  and  which  constantly  appears  as  an  attribute 
of  Pan,  the  zealous  huntsman.  The  left  forearm,  as  we  assumed  in  the  case  of  the 
Dresden  boy,  is  stretched  forward,  and  holds  the  other  chief  attribute  of  Pan,  the 
syrinx,3  on  which  his  lowered  gaze  seems  to  rest.  The  motive  so  suitable  to  the 
modest  victor  is  here  simply  transferred  to  Pan,  apparently  without  a thought  whether 
it  is  appropriate  to  him  or  not. 

The  head  shows  the  closest  kinship  to  the  Dresden  boy,4  as  well  in  the  form  of 
the  skull  with  the  hollow  in  the  nape  of  the  neck,  as  in  the  face  and  its  expression. 
The  hair  is  rendered  in  the  same  narrow  intertwining  strands  ; separate  parts,  such  as 
the  lock  in  front  of  the  right  ear,  are  strikingly  similar.  Yet  the  whole  mass  is 
fuller  and  looser  than  in  the  Dresden  boy,  and  more  like  the  Diadumenos.  The  body5 
also  corresponds  stylistically  with  the  former,  i.e.  the  transitions  are  softer  than  in  the 
‘ boy  crowning  himself,’  while  the  forms  throughout  are  Polykleitan. 

Nevertheless,  the  artist  has  tried  to  characterize  Pan  ; the  hair  in  front  does  not, 
as  in  its  prototype,  the  boy  victor  of  St.  Petersburg,  fall  over  the  forehead,  but  grows 
upwards  as  in  figures  of  Satyrs  ; in  order  that  it  may  not  break  the  beautiful 
contour  of  the  skull,  it  must  of  course  lie  close  to  the  head  ; the  two  horns  lie  equally 
close,  their  roots  being  skilfully  hidden  in  the  hair  ; the  long  pointed  ears,  almost 
like  those  of  a beast,  are  set  flat  against  the  sides  of  the  head. 

We  have  here  most  probably  the  production  of  a pupil  who  worked  in  immediate 
association  with  Polykleitos,  and  founded  the  conception  of  his  own  statue  on  that 
‘ Dresden  type’  created  by  the  master  himself  for  the  representation  of  a boy  victor.  PI  is 
work  was  certainly  not  far  removed  in  time  from  this  type  and  from  the  Diadumenos. 

We  can  point  to  two  more  instances  in  which  the  beautiful  Polykleitan  creation 
of  the  Dresden  athlete  has  been  used  for  a mythological  figure. 

One  of  these  works  exists,  so  far  as  I know  at  present,  in  one  copy  only.  It  is  a 
statue  of  a youth,  resembling  the  Dresden  boy  in  all  particulars,  even  in  the  principal 

1 Whole  statues  with  head,  (a)  in  Leyden,  Janssen,  Catalogue,  i.  62.  Excellently  preserved;  the  legs,  the 
basis,  the  right  arm  with  the  pedum,  and  the  left  arm  are  genuine  ; the  syrinx  in  the  left  hand  is  at  least  partly 
ancient.  On  the  head  only  the  end  of  the  nose  is  new.  In  1883  I examined  the  statues  (b)  and  (c)—  the  two  copies 
worked  by  Cossutius  Cerdo,  Brit.  Mus.  ( Guide  Graeco-Rom.  Sculpt.  Nos.  188,  190  ; Auc.  Marbles,  ii.  33,  43  ; 
Brunn-Bruckmann,  Deiikm.  No.  47).  The  arms  are  wrongly  restored  ; in  one  the  nose  is  complete  and  the  hair 
carefully  copied  ; in  ( a ) the  body  is  better.—  (d)  Vatican,  Gall,  dei  Candelabri,  246  ; Helbig,  Museums,  i.  No.  389. 
The  poorest  of  all.  The  left  arm  is  new  ; the  right  arm  is  ancient  and  hangs  down  holding  an  oinchoe,  which 
is  supported  on  a pillar  and  used  as  the  spout  of  a fountain  : hence  the  Pan  must  have  been  used  as  the  decoration 
of  a fountain.  The  head  is  very  sketchy,  the  hair  almost  without  detail. — Separate  heads:  ( e ) Good  copy  in  the 
Conservatovi  Pal.  (Bull.  Comunale,  1887,  Tav.  iv.  ; Helbig,  Museums,  i.  No.  606).  Here  the  polykleitan  style  is 
very  exactly  reproduced  ; (/)  a good  but  not  well-preserved  copy  in  the  Terme  Mus.  (photographs  in  German 
Inst.) ; (g)  less  good,  in  Vienna,  Hof.  Museum  ; the  features  are  softened  and  inexact  ; (h)  in  Palermo,  in  the 
second  court  of  the  Museum  ; nose  and  chin  new,  hair  fairly  faithful ; (t)  Hanover,  Kestner  Museum,  poor 
copy  ; (h)  Lateran,  524  ; Helbig,  Museums,  i.  No.  666,  poor.  Lateran,  288  (Helbig,  Fiihrer,  No.  630),  is  a free 
modification  of  the  type,  not  a copy.—  Cf.  Annali,  1877,  202  seq. ; Satyr  von  Pergamon,  p.  29. 

2 For  the  straight  form  of  the  pedum  cf.  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1877,  212  seq. 

3 To  be  restored  with  pipes  of  equal  length  Cf.  Annali,  1877*  2I4  sel- 

4 The  head  of  the  Leyden  statue  here  published  is  not  exact  in  the  details  of  the  head,  b,  c,  e,  and  / are 
more  true  to  the  original. 

5 The  body  in  the  Leyden  statue  is  more  faithful  to  the  style  of  the  original  than  the  copies  by  Cossutius 
Cerdo,  which  are  too  soft  and  plump. 


PAN 


271 


proportions,  except  that  a sword-belt  crosses  the  body  from  the  right  shoulder  to  the 
left  hip.1  Probably  he  held  the  sword  or  some  other  weapon  in  his  outstretched  left 


Fig.  i 14. — Youthful  Pan  (Leyden). 


hand,  and  we  may  call  him  Ares.  The  copyist  was  one  of  that  numerous  class  who 
reproduce  Polykleitan  originals  in  a soft  and  feeble  manner.  Such  copies  are  apt  to 

1 Rome,  Conserv.  Pal.  Bull.  Comunale,  1886,  Tav.  i.  ii.  ; p.  54  seq.  (Benndorf,  who,  mistaking  the  details  of 
the  statue,  the  technique,  and  the  style,  sees  in  it  the  Thespian  Eros  of  Praxiteles) ; Ilelbig,  Museums , No.  568  ; 
Robert,  Arch.  Mdrchen,  160  seq.  The  upper  part  of  the  head  and  the  back  were  pieced  on.  The  figure  can  never 
have  had  wings. 


POLYKLEITOS 


2^2 

deceive  an  unpractised  eye.  Yet  sufficient  Polykleitan  traits  answering  to  the 
Dresden  type  are  left  to  make  it  apparent  that  the  original  was  closely  allied  to 
that  type.  The  hair  round  the  ears— covering  in  this  figure  also  the  upper  part  of 
the  ear — is  treated  in  the  same  way  ; the  modelling  of  the  body,  the  characteristic 
navel,  the  hollow  at  the  side  of  each  gluteus,  even  on  the  side  of  the  leg  at  rest,  and 
other  details,  are  all  purely  Polykleitan,  though  they  are  rendered  in  a weak  manner 
that  lacks  all  energy.  The  original  must  have  owed  its  existence  to  the  immediate 
circle  of  Polykleitos. 

There  arc  several  replicas  of  a statue  of  Dionysos,1  which,  like  the  Pan,  is  two 
thirds  life-size.  The  motive  is  again  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  Dresden  boy 
victor  ; here  too  the  right  hand  hung  down,  and  the  left  was  stretched  forward. 
The  forms  of  the  body  most  nearly  resemble  the  Pan,  and  are  quite  in  Polykleitan 
style,  without  any  mixture  of  the  softness  appropriate  to  Dionysos.2  Unfortunately 
there  is  only  one  authentic  fragment  of  the  head  on  one  of  the  replicas.3  The 
god  is  characterized  by  long  curls  falling  on  the  shoulders,  by  a bunch  of  hair  on 
the  nape  of  the  neck,  and  by  a gracefully  disposed  nebris  fastened  on  his  right 
shoulder.  For  the  source  of  the  work  we  must  certainly  look  to  the  school  of 
Polykleitos. 

Another  statuary  composition,  also  two  thirds  life-size,  belongs  to  this  same 
series  (Fig.  115).4  Here  the  typical  motive  has  become  more  pronounced,  and 
expresses  cpiiet  and  pleasant  repose.  It  is  true  that  the  essential  features — the 
attitude  of  the  legs,  the  turn  and  inclination  of  the  head,  the  boyish  forms — are 
unaltered  ; but  in  this  instance  the  left  hand  rests  on  a pillar,  and  the  weight  of  the 
body  is  partly  transferred  from  the  right  leg  to  the  left  arm.  The  right  hand,  in 

1 (a)  in  Dresden,  Hettner(4th  ed.),  No.  163  ; Becker,  Augusteum,  ii.  74  ; Fried. -Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1493.  The 
lower  part  of  the  r.  leg  and  the  1.  leg  from  the  middle  of  the  thigh  are  new.  Remains  of  a puntello  in  the  right 
thigh  show  that  the  right  arm  was  lowered.  The  neck  and  parts  of  the  head— viz.  right  ear,  piece  of  cheek,  and 
hair  above  the  ear — are  ancient  and  unbroken.  At  the  back,  above  the  battered  remains  of  a tail  of  hair  of  the 
simple,  severe  style,  the  restorer  has  placed  a knot  of  hair  of  the  usual  late  fashion.  Everything  else  about  the 
head  is  modern.  ( b ) Berlin,  Sculpt.  S9.  Torso,  badly  restored,  (c)  Chirac,  684,  1603  A,  Ince  Blundell  Hall ; 
Michaelis,  Sculpt,  in  Gr.  Brit.  p.  347,  No.  32. 

2 Specially  characteristic  are  the  abdomen  with  the  flat  navel,  the  linea  alba,  and  the  sharply  marked  off 
pudendum. 

3 In  ci.  In  c the  whole  head  might  from  the  style  possibly  be  ancient.  I have  not  seen  the  statue. 

4 The  so-called  Narkissos.  Winnefeld  ( Hypnos , p.  30)  has  collected  a list  of  replicas,  among  which  some  few 

variants  that  really  do  not  belong  to  the  series  have  crept  in.  I described  several  replicas  in  Bull.  de/T  Inst.  1877, 
158.  I know  the  following  in  the  original  : Statues  with  head : («)  Berlin,  Beschr.  d.  Skulpt.  223  : stylistically  faithful 
copy,  not  very  detailed  in  the  hair  ; upper  part  given  in  Winnefeld,  Taf.  ii.  = our  Fig.  1 15.  (b)  Mus.  Chiaramonti, 

526:  only  the  upper  part  preserved,  very  good,  (c)  Pal.  Rospigliosi,  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  525:  poor. 
(d)  Villa  Borghese  : upper  part  only.  Cf.  Bull. , loc.  cit.  159,  6.  (e)  Mantua,  65,  Diitschke,  iv.  650  : holds  an  apple  ; 
very  poor,  inexact,  and  rough  copy.  (/)  Louvre,  Coll.  Campana,  phot.  ed.  Giraudon,  1295.  (g)  Carlsruhe,  Winne- 
feld, Taf.  i.  : style  inexact,  much  softened  down  ; small  wings  added  to  the  head  ; workmanship  of  Hadrian’s  period. 
Kalkmann  ( Gesichtsprop.  p.  53)  is  wrong  in  thinking  the  head  does  not  belong.  — Torsos:  (h)  Mantua,  26:  right  hand 
empty,  (i)  Genoa,  Pal.  Reale  : an  apple  in  the  right  hand,  which  is  half  antique,  (k)  Rome,  Palazzo  Colonna  : head 
does  not  belong.  (/)  Pal.  Doria,  Matz-Duhn,  223.  (m)  Pal.  Barberini,  Matz-Duhn,  975  : apple  in  the  right  hand. 

(n)  Berlin,  Skulpt.  224.  ( 0 ) Naples,  casually  mentioned  by  Friederichs,  Arch.  Anzeiger,  1862,  309,  and  by  others. 

Height  without  basis  0'6i,  basis  antique,  lower  part  of  legs  restored  to  the  ankles,  head  missing.  Both  hands 
preserved  : the  right  on  the  back  holds  an  apple,  the  left  is  supported  by  a pillar  on  which  lies  drapery.  In  front 
of  the  pillar  a female  term,  draped  above  ; the  feet  come  out  below  ; free  style,  long  shoulder  curls,  full  face. 
— Heads:  (p)  Berlin.  Skulpt.  263  ; much  defaced,  but  gives  the  hair  faithfully,  (q)  Cassel,  ii.  1 : a very  good  copy 
placed  on  the  torso  of  an  oil-pourer.  (r)  Copenhagen,  Coll.  Jacobsen,  No.  1094:  poor,  hair  very  sketchy  ; 
wrongly  called  ‘ Doryphoros  ’ in  the  catalogue,  (s)  Ibid.  No.  1075  : free  copy,  but  unaltered  in  proportions  ; hair, 
eyes,  and  mouth  formed  in  later  style,  as  in  c and  g.  To  see  how  copies  can  differ,  cf.  r and  s.  [To  these  eighteen 
replicas  may  now  be  added  ( t ) statue  recently  acquired  by  the  Louvre  ; head  and  torso  in  exquisite  preservation  ; 
arms  and  legs  broken  but  belonging  ; admirably  published  PI.  xvii.  of  Monuments  et  Mdmoires  (Fond.  E.  Piot), 
vol  i.  ; ibid.  p.  115  sc/.  (E.  Michon),  where  also  further  particulars  on  the  Campana  statue  (/)  are  given. — E.  S.] 


ADONIS 


273 


order  not  to  disturb  the  repose  of  the  body,  must  have  been  laid  on  the  back.  The 
head  was  bent  down  close  to  the  raised  shoulder,  and  the  whole  composition  was 
rounded  off  in  a highly  harmonious  and  pleasing  manner.  The  bodily  forms  corrc- 


Fig.  115. — The  ‘Narkissos’  (Berlin). 


spond  to  those  of  the  Pan,  and  so  does  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  head  and  the 
magnificent  Polyklcitan  build  of  skull.  The  hair,  although  full  and  plastic,  clings 
for  the  most  part  closely  to  the  head  ; the  upper  part  of  the  ear  is  covered  ; there 
is  no  parting  over  the  forehead.  None  of  the  copies  show  fine  separate  intertwining 

N N 


274 


POLYKLEITOS 


locks  of  hair  as  in  the  Pan  ; this  however  may  be  accidental  ; certainly  the  latter  work 
affords  the  nearest  stylistic  parallel  as  regards  the  hair,  and  there  is  great  resemblance 
in  the  facial  forms.  Both  works  must  be  referred  to  the  same  circle  of  the  master’s 
pupils. 

In  the  Amazon,  Polykleitos  had  already  created  a figure  at  rest,  leaning  slightly 
against  a support  ; but  it  was  a great  step  from  this  to  a figure  completely  supported 
on  one  side  like  the  statue  we  are  now  considering.  The  motive  strongly  recalls 
the  Herakles,  leaning  with  weary  bowed  head  on  the  club  which  props  him  under 
the  left  armpit,  while  his  right  hand  is  laid  on  his  back  or  set  against  his  side.  This 
Herakles  type  was  developed  as  early  as  the  fifth  century,1  and  seems  to  have  taken 
shape  not  only  in  drawings  and  reliefs,  but  in  a work  of  statuary  which  must  have 
come  into  being  in  the  Attic  artistic  circle  of  about  the  end  of  the  same  century.2 
It  is  quite  legitimate  to  ask  whether  one  of  these  two  creations,  the  boy  or  the 
Herakles,  was  not  influenced  by  the  other.  Since  the  motive  as  applied  to  Herakles 
has  an  eventful  previous  history  extending  back  to  the  severe  Attic  style  of 
vase-painting,  and  is  closely  bound  up  with  the  very  nature  of  the  hero  of  so  many 
toils  and  troubles,  and  since  the  circle  of  Polykleitos  is  very  deficient  in  inventive 
power,  it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  is  another  instance  of  the  transference 
of  a magnificent  statuary  conception  from  Attic  to  Argive  art.  In  the  present  case 
the  motive  was  adapted  to  the  boyish  type  of  figure  resembling  Pan. 

We  still  have  to  consider  the  meaning  of  the  figure,  which  copyists  of  Imperial 
times  adapted  to  various  interpretations.  One  copyist  made  it  into  a Hermes  (hardly 
a Hypnos)  by  adding  small  wings  to  the  head.3  In  some  replicas  there  is  an  apple 
in  the  right  hand  ;4  the  intention  of  this  addition  is  doubtful,  but  it  may  be  the 
usual  Aphrodisian  attribute.5  A figure  in  relief  with  an  apple  on  the  pillar  support 
belonging  to  one  copy  ( o ) seems  to  corroborate  this  notion.  It  is  a veiled  goddess 
ending  in  a term,  and  doubtless  to  be  interpreted  as  Aphrodite,  who  as  Ourania 
was  represented  in  Athens  in  the  form  of  a term.6  Our  figure,  then,  must  have 
some  special  relation  to  Aphrodite.  Another  replica7  has  the  arm  supported  on  a 
wine-skin,  hence  it  was  probably  intended  to  decorate  a fountain.  The  gems  too, 
which  show  frequent  reproductions  of  our  statue,  are  of  great  importance.  On  one 
fine  piece  a female  figure  almost  nude,  probably  Aphrodite,  is  placed  on  the  right 
of  the  boy.8  Another  time  he  is  characterized  as  a huntsman,  and  holds  two  spears 
in  the  left  hand,  which  is  propped  on  a rock  ; dogs  accompany  him,  and  on  the  rock 
are  a boar’s  head  and  stag’s  antlers  supporting  an  image  of  Artemis.9  Both  gems 
render  the  statue  in  a very  exact  and  characteristic  manner,  and  are  certainly 

1 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2173. 

2 Life-size  copy  in  Dresden.  Style,  end  of  fifth  century.  The  right  hand  is  set  against  the  side,  not  laid  on 
the  back.  According  to  Herrmann  {Arch.  Anz.  1804,  p.  26),  there  is  a replica  in  the  Villa  Borghese. 

3 g in  the  above  list.  Winnefeld  supposes  Hypnos  ; but  the  wings  are  like  those  given  to  Hermes,  and 
Hermes  often  occurs  in  similar  motives. 

4 e,  i,  m,  o.  An  apple,  not  a pomegranate.  Kalkmann  ( Gesichtsproport . p.  53)  is  wrong  in  supposing  it  to 
be  an  aryballos. 

5 The  common  supposition  that  the  apple  shows  the  figure  to  be  a death  daemon  is  untenable  and  quite 
unproven  {Satyr  von  Pergamon , p.  30,  note). 

6 Pans.  i.  19,  2.  The  manner  of  draping  is  specially  common  to  terms,  which  render  the  body  down  to  the 
hips.  Figures  like  Herakles  and  Pan,  which  are  usually  nude,  are  likewise  draped  when  adapted  to  terms. 

7 I only  know  it  through  Laborde,  Voyage  en  Espagne,  PI.  99  E.  Cf.  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  159. 

8 Cades,  cl.  i.  K,  86 ; probably  a paste  ; large,  fine  style  ; drapery  added  on  the  left  shoulder.  Evidently  an 
imitation  of  the  statue. 

9 Cades,  cl.  iii.  B,  105  : drapery  on  the  left  shoulder,  style  of  the  statue  well  reproduced.  Admirable 
workmanship. 


ADONIS 


275 


derived  from  it.  Other  gems  give  variants  ; the  figure  is  turned  to  the  left  and  the 
sides  reversed.  A stone  of  this  kind  makes  the  figure  into  a Ganymede  by  the 
addition  of  a Phrygian  cap  and  of  an  eagle  below.1  Another  makes  it  into 
Narkissos  by  an  indication  of  water  in  the  background  and  of  a figure  leaping  into 
it.2  A freer  variation  is  one  in  which  not  the  left  hand  but  the  forearm  is 
supported  on  a pillar  or  pedestal : this  type  is  once  characterized  as  a huntsman  and 
also  as  Hermes  or  Bonus  Eventus  ; 3 with  reversed  sides  and  looking  to  the  left 
he  again  appears  as  a huntsman.4  An  Attic  grave-relief  of  the  fourth  century  repeats 
the  type,  adding  a small  hare  which  rests  on  the  boy’s  left  hand.5 6 

Nowhere  do  we  find  any  indication  that  the  type  had  a sepulchral  signification.0 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  best  gems  represent  the  youth  as  a 
huntsman  ; those  gems  which  make  him  into  a Hermes,  a Ganymede,  or  a Narkissos 
are  few  in  number,  of  inferior  workmanship,  and  evidently  free  modifications  of  the 
original  design,  like  that  statuary  copy  in  which  wings  are  added.  P'urther,  a near 
connexion  with  Aphrodite  is  assured,  not  only  by  one  of  the  best  gems,  but  also  by 
one  of  the  statues,  and  by  the  apple  which  occurs  in  several  of  the  replicas. 

The  figure  must  have  a mythological  meaning  ; it  is  not  the  statue  of  a victorious 
athlete,  but  belongs  to  the  same  series  as  the  Pan  and  the  Dionysos  of  the  Polykleitan 
school.  Narkissos  is  not  a familiar  figure  in  this  school,  nor  is  there  anything  definite 
to  suggest  Hyakinthos,  an  interpretation  I was  formerly  inclined  to.7  But  if  we 
call  the  boy  Adonis,  I think  we  shall  find  that  everything  fits  admirably  to  the  name. 
The  cultus  of  Adonis  is  known  to  have  been  practised  in  Argos,8  and  it  cannot  have 
been  more  recent  there  than  in  Athens,  where  we  find  it  established  in  the  time  of 
Alkibiades.9  If  there  was  an  Adonis  of  the  Polykleitan  school  at  all,  it  would  certainly 
be  a figure  without  a trace  of  Oriental  costume,  and  we  could  hardly  think  of  it  as  a 
different  type  from  our  statue. 

On  an  Attic  aryballos  from  Kertsch,  with  reliefs  of  wonderful  beauty  carried  out 
in  a style  akin  to  the  Parthenon  frieze,  Adonis  (inscribed)  appears  as  a slender  youth 
with  no  hint  of  the  Oriental.  He  is  closely  grouped  with  Aphrodite  and  Eros,  and  is 
represented  resting,  with  his  arm  over  his  head.10 

1 Formerly  Coll.  Schaaffhausen,  Catalogue , 354  (impressions,  14)  : chlamys  added  ; a lance  leans  on  the  rock. 
Poor  workmanship. 

2 Carnelian  ; Coll.  Thorwaldsen,  Cades,  iii.  B,  93  ; Impronte  dell'  Inst.  i.  73  ; Wieseler,  Narkissos,  Taf.  No. 
8 ; cf.  p.  20.  Late  bad  workmanship. 

3 The  gem  of  Koinos,  pub.  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1888,  Taf.  10,  20  ; discussed  ibid.  1889,  p.  51.  Huntsman  with 
spear  and  dog.  Cades,  cl.  i.  L,  26.  Kerykeion  in  the  supported  left  hand,  therefore  = Hermes.  Poor  workman- 
ship. St.  Petersburg  (impression  in  Berlin,  1,  34) : nicolo,  from  the  ear  of  corn  in  the  left  hand,  evidently 
a Bonus  Eventus  ; very  poor. 

4 St.  Petersburg  (impression  in  Berlin,  19,  31),  carnelian  ; the  r.  hand  holds  a hare  out  towards  an  eagle  ; 
a dog  beside  it  ; two  spears  in  1.  hand  on  the  back. 

5 Stele  of  Telesias_  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1014  ; the  left  forearm  is  supported  on  the  pillar  ; like  the 
gems  in  note  1. 

6 As  I formerly  maintained  in  Bull.,  loc.  cit.,  this  opinion  was  retracted  in  the  Satyr  von  Pergarnon,  p.  29  : 

it  is  still  adhered  to  by  Winnefeld,  loc.  cit.  7 Satyr  von  Pergarnon,  p.  29. 

8 Paus.  ii.  20,  6.  The  wailing  of  women  was,  here  as  at  Athens,  the  principal  feature  of  the  cultus. 

0 Aristoph.  Lysislr.  389  seq. ; Plut.  Alkib.  18  \ Nik.  13. 

10  Hermitage,  newly  acquired  : the  reliefs  are  of  great  beauty  and  interest.  The  scene  is  laid  in  Cyprus. 
To  the  left  the  hero  Teuvpos  (inscr. ),  the  founder  of  the  Kyprian  Salamis  ; opposite  him  sits  Tekmessa,  who  was 
given  over  to  him  by  his  dead  brother  (Soph.  Aias,  563,  972  sqq. ),  and  the  boy  Evpucramjs  (inscr.)  ; then  Adonis 
{'ASmvios)  seated,  with  Eros  standing  on  his  lap  ; he  holds  with  his  left  hand  rmSoi  standing,  who  lays  one  hand 
on  his  lap  ; in  her  thin  chiton  she  resembles  the  Venus  Genetrix  (of  Alkamenes).  Behind  her,  opposite  to 
Adonis,  sits  'Acppoint],  almost  exactly  like  the  Hegeso  of  the  well-known  grave-relief.  The  inscriptions  are  in 
Ionian  characters  ; the  style  dates  the.  vase  in  the  time  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  Delicate  painting  and 
gilding. 


2j6 


P0LYKLE1  IOS 


It  was  no  out-of-the-way  idea  to  represent  the  beautiful  huntsman  who  died 
young  in  the  attitude  of  our  statue,  i.e.  in  a posture  expressing  weariness.  If  the 
work  enjoyed  such  a measure  of  favour  in  later  times,  it  was  probably  owing  to  the 
charm  of  the  motive  and  the  ease  with  which  the  figure,  like  the  Pan,  could  be  adapted 
for  decoration. 

The  small  scale  (two  thirds  life-size)  of  the  works  we  have  just  discussed  is 


a 

Fig.  ii6. — Bronze  statuette. 


b 

(Bibl.  Nationale,  Paris.) 


one  of  their  characteristics;  they  were  commissions  of  minor  importance  which 
fell  to  the  share  of  the  great  master’s  pupils  towards  the  end  of  his  career  or  after 
his  death. 

A more  recent  school  work,  allied  in  motive  to  the  ‘ Narkissos’  discussed  above, 
and  to  be  classified  in  this  series  on  account  of  the  attitude  of  the  legs  and  the  droop 
of  the  head,  can  be  studied  in  the  admirable  little  bronze  in  Paris1  (Fig.  116,  a and  b) 

1 Cabinet  des  Medailles,  Coll.  Janze,  No.  50.  Height  c.  o '25.  Beautiful  pale-green  patina.  The  pupils  were 
inserted.  The  left  hand,  now  missing,  was  made  separately.  Both  feet  are  restored  in  wax.  I discussed 
statuette  and  gem  in  the  Archdol.  Gesellschaft,  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  141 


ARISTAIOS 


2 77 


and  a gem  (Fig.  117)  exactly  corresponding  to  the  statuette  and  evidently  derived 
from  the  same  original.1  According  to  the  evidence  of  the  gem,  the  figure  leaned 
with  the  now  missing  left  hand  on  a staff  round  which  a snake  was  twined. 

Not  only  this  attribute  but  the  whole  type  is  borrowed  from  Asklepios,  for  whom 
it  had  been  already  elaborated  in  Attic  art  at  a period  not  much  subsequent  to  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century,  as  an  interesting  statue  in  Berlin  shows.2  Later,  in  the 
circle  of  Skopas  and  Praxiteles,  the  type  was  carefully  fostered  and 
intensified,3  an  effective  upward  turn  being  now  given  to  the  head. 

Our  figure  goes  back  to  the  old  formula  of  the  type,  in  which  the  head 
is  only  turned  slightly  to  the  left,  and  the  right  hip  only  curved  slightly 
outwards.  A variation  is  introduced  in  the  snake-wouncl  staff,  which 
is  not  propped  under  the  left  armpit,  but  supported  between  the  forearm 
and  the  body  and  held  by  the  hand.  This  brings  the  position  nearer 
the  Polykleitan  scheme. 

The  modelling  of  chest  and  abdomen  is  clearly  Polykleitan,  while 
the  head  also  offers  conspicuously  Polykleitan  characteristics — in  its  large  surface 
planes,  in  the  formation  of  nose,  eyes,  and  forehead,  and  in  the  symmetrical  parting 
of  the  hair  in  front.  The  noble  simplicity  of  the  drapery  corresponds  to  the  style  of 
the  rest. 

We  may  conclude,  then,  that  the  original  is  a work  of  the  school  of  Polykleitos 
belonging — if  we  judge  from  the  strongly  plastic  freedom  of  the  hair — to  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  based  on  an  Attic  Asklepios  type  of  the  fifth  century. 

But  whom  does  the  statue  represent  ? An  unbearded  Asklepios  would  be  nothing 
out  of  the  way,  especially  in  the  Pcloponnesos.4  There  is,  for  instance,  a statuette 
from  Epidauros  representing  an  unbearded  Asklepios  whose  forms  indicate  Polykleitan 
influence.5  But  the  mural  crown  on  our  figure  points  to  another  interpretation  ; 
the  person  pourtrayed  must  be  a protecting  divinity,  a hero  allied  in  functions  to 
Asklepios,  and  reverenced  in  a peculiar  degree  as  guardian  or  founder  of  a city. 
The  type  of  Asklepios  was  frequently  transferred  without  alteration  to  heroes  of 
the  healing  craft,  witness  the  examples  of  Amphiaraos  in  Oropos  and  of  Trophonios 
in  Lebadeia  ; even  the  statue  by  Timotheos  in  the  temenos  of  Hippolytos  in  Troezene 
represented  the  hero  according  to  a scheme  borrowed  from  Asklepios,  but  certainly 
unbearded.6 

More  definite  evidence  for  naming  our  statue  is  supplied  by  two  marble 
replicas  of  it  found  in  Kyrene.  One  of  them,  in  the  British  Museum,7  is  in  excellent 

1 Cades,  cl.  ii.  D,  16:  without  mention  of  owner  or  of  species;  probably  an  emerald-plasma.  The  gem 
belongs  to  the  series  which  give  exact  copies  of  statues.  The  agreement  with  the  bronze  is  striking. 

2 Skulpt.  68.  Head  l’heidian,  like  the  Dresden  Asklepios  (p.  55,  note  6).  The  original  to  be  dated  about 
440  B. c. , earlier  than  the  Asklepios  of  the  more  recent  Pheidian  school  (p.  89,  note  6). 

3 Wolters,  Ath.  Mitth.  xvii.  p.  1 seq.  Taf.  ii. — iv.  Among  the  fragments  of  reliefs  from  the  Asklepieion  in 
Athens  I noticed  in  1877  three  examples  of  the  type. 

4 Cf.  Wieseler,  Gottinger  Nachrickten,  1888,  p.  143  seq. 

5 Marble  statuette,  Central  Mus. , Kabbadias,  Cat.  No.  270  ; copy  of  an  older  work  ; weight  on  left  leg, 
left  arm  supported,  mantle  leaving  right  breast  free,  beautiful  youthful  head  with  falling  curls  of  moderate  length  ; 
the  head  seems  to  belong  to  the  statue,  although  the  preservation  of  the  surface  differs  in  both  ; the  rolled  fillet 
shows  at  any  rate  that  the  head  is  that  of  a beardless  Asklepios.  The  snake  is  at  the  side,  as  we  assumed  for 
the  Florentine  Asklepios  (p.  208). 

6 Paus.  ii.  32,  4,  who  calls  it  simply  an  Asklepios,  but  adds  that  the  Troezenians  called  it  Hippolytos.  The 
statue  of  Hippolytos  with  spear  and  dog,  which  occurs  on  coins  of  Troezene  (Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner, 
Hum.  Comm.  PI.  M.  viii.),  is  certainly  not,  as  Wieseler  (toe.  cit.  146)  thinks,  the  Asklepios  of  Pausanias, 
but  another  Hippolytos  statue. 

7 Smith  and  Porcher,  Hist  of  Disc,  at  Cyrene,  p.  103,  No.  74  ; for  the  discovery,  p.  77.  Newton,  Guide 
Graeco-Rom.  Sc.  ii.  No.  114.  J.  H.  S.  iv.  p.  46  seq.  (Wroth)  with  illustration.  The  statue  was  found  in  the  same 


278 


POLYKLE1TOS 


preservation,  except  that  the  upper  part  of  the  mural  crown  is  missing,  whence  the 
existence  of  the  crown  has  hitherto  passed  unnoticed.  The  other  replica,  in  Edinburgh, 
is  known  to  me  from  illustration  and  description  j1  it  is  slightly  modified  in  drapery 
and  hair.  Both  figures  are  inferior  productions  of  the  later  Roman  period.  The  one 
in  the  British  Museum  certainly  does  not  preserve  much  of  that  Polykleitan  style 
which  the  bronze  reproduces  so  well.  Traces  of  this  style  are  more  visible  in  the 
body  of  the  marble  replica  than  in  the  head,  for,  though  the  hair  is  fairly  exactly 
copied,  the  mouth  and  the  expression  appear  to  be  softened  down.  The  drapery 
answers,  fold  for  fold,  to  the  bronze.  The  discoverers  suggested  Aristaios  as  an 
interpretation,  even  without  noticing  the  mural  crown,  and  the  existence  of  the  crown 
only  confirms  their  hypothesis.  Aristaios,  a divinity  closely  akin  to  Asklepios,  guardian 
of  Kyrene,  institutor  of  the  culture  of  the  silphium,  and  by  its  means  founder  of  the 
power  and  wealth  of  the  city,  son  of  the  eponymous  goddess  Kyrene,  satisfies  all  the 
conditions  attached  to  the  interpretation  of  our  statue.  Aristaios,  son  of  Apollo  in 
Kyrene,  was  also  called  son  of  Paion,2  an  epithet  which  designates  him  as  a divinity 
of  the  healing  craft  like  Asklepios.  Pie  was  brought  up  by  Cheiron  the  physician, 
and  in  Kyrene,  as  Pindar’s  allusion  proves,3  was  considered  to  be  a divinity  allied  in 
nature  not  only  to  Apollo  but  to  Zeus.  This  may  account  for  the  head  type  of  our 
statue  ; the  youthful  age  recalls  Apollo,  but  the  strong  regal  locks  correspond  to  the 
type  of  Zeus,  which  was  already  fixed  in  the  period  to  which  we  have  assigned  the 
statue. 

We  suppose,  then,  that  the  original  was  made  for  Kyrene  by  an  Argive  artist. 
Afterwards  the  motive  was  repeated  elsewhere.  A late  echo  of  it  is  given  by  a bronze 
bust  found  in  Gaul,  a faithful  enough  though  rough  reproduction  of  the  youth  wearing 
a mural  crown.4 

Among  other  works  belonging  to  the  more  extended  circle  of  the  Polykleitan 
school  may  be  mentioned  a beautiful  bronze  statuette  of  a youthful  athlete  in  the 
Louvre  ; it  is  in  place  here  because  its  motive  is  allied  to  that  of  the  Dresden  ‘ boy 
victor.’  The  attitude  of  the  feet,  the  turn  and  bend  of  the  head,  correspond  ; the 
eyes,  again,  look  down  towards  the  outstretched  left  hand  ; but  the  right  arm  is  raised 
horizontally  ; the  youth  appears  to  be  holding  the  fillet  in  his  right  hand  and  letting 
it  glide  over  the  open  palm  of  the  left  hand.  The  rendering  of  form  is  in  its  ground- 
work Polykleitan,  though  later  realistic  traits  have  also  crept  in.  I think  it  probable 
that  work  like  this  was  done  by  remote  followers  of  Polykleitos  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  among  them  by  Kleon  of  Sikyon.  The  bronze  is  apparently  a Greek 
original.5 

small  temple  at  Kyrene  as  the  well-known  1 Kyrene  and  Libya  ’ relief.  Cecil  Smith  confirms  my  opinion 
that  remains  of  a mural  crown  are  to  be  seen  on  the  head. 

1 Michaelis,  J.H.S.  v.  157.  Cecil  Smith  had  the  kindness  to  obtain  for  me  more  exact  particulars  from 
Dr.  Anderson  : it  seems  that  the  broken  portion  on  the  head  ‘ might  very  well  have  been  a mural  crown.  ’ Under 
the  crown  is  added  the  rolled  fillet  which  belongs  to  the  Asklepios  type.  Good  illustration  in  the  Arckaeologia 
Scotica,  Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  vol.  iv.  Taf.  16,  p.  337.  The  head  is  more 
softened  down  than  in  the  British  Museum  copy,  the  curls  are  longer  and  fuller  at  the  sides,  but  the  symmetric 
parting  over  the  forehead  is  the  same.  The  drapery  is  stately  ; a three-cornered  piece  falling  over  is  indicated. 
The  head  is  rather  more  raised.  With  these  exceptions  it  agrees  with  the  other  replicas. 

2 Pherekydes,  frag.  10  (Muller). 

3 Pind.  Pyth.  9,  63  : 6r}(T0VTai  re  viv  adavarov  Ziji'a  /cal  ayi'bi'  ’ AirlAAwva. 

4 Frohner,  Coll.  Grtau,  Bronzes  Ant.  PI.  43,  No.  1108. 

5 Formerly  in  Coll.  Pourtales,  then  Greau  ; well  illustrated  by  Frohner,  Cole.  Grdau,  Bronzes  Ant.  PI.  32, 
No.  964.  Frohner’s  assumption  that  the  figure  is  pouring  oil  is  inconsistent  with  the  position  of  the  hands. 
For  the  above  motive  with  the  fillet  cf.  the  Nike  on  a coin  of  Elis  of  severe  style,  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  3,  42. 


XENOKLES 


279 


VII.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Xenokles. — The  Idolino. 

The  third  Polykleitos  basis  at  Olympia,  which  supported  the  statue  of  Xenokles, 
a boy  victorious  in  the  wrestling  contest,  is  of  great  significance,  for  by  its  means 
we  are  able  to  connect  with  Polykleitos,  in  a more  definite  way  than  we  could  otherwise 
have  done,  a series  of  extant  figures. 

The  basis  (Fig.  1 1 8) 1 shows  both  footmarks  in  complete  preservation  ; round  the 
deep  cavity  for  insertion  the  outline  of  the  foot  itself  is  distinctly  visible.  Each 
foot  was  23  cm.  long  ; hence  the  scale  of  the  figure  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
‘boy  crowning  himself.’  The  attitude  was  one  of 
repose  ; the  weight  of  the  body  was  on  the  right 
leg ; the  left  leg  was  slightly  advanced  and  set  to 
one  side,  with  the  foot  flat  on  the  ground. 

The  same  motive  in  which  Xenokles  was  repre- 
sented was  also  applied  to  another  Polykleitan  figure 
of  a youth  at  a more  advanced  stage  of  adolescence. 

This  is  proved  by  an  admirable  bronze  statuette  of 
the  Louvre,  which,  as  is  plainly  to  be  seen  from 
external  marks,2  is  an  undoubted  genuine  Greek 
original.3  (PI.  XIII.  and  Fig.  119.)  This  work  must 
belong  to  the  immediate  circle  of  the  master’s 
pupils,  and  have  been  directly  inspired  by  the  master 
himself,  for  it  manifests  his  style  in  all  its  purity,  fig.  h8.— Basis  of  Xenokles  in  Olympia, 
and  the  execution  is  of  marvellous  perfection.4  The 

forms  correspond  throughout  to  those  of  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumcnos  : they  are 
strong  and  virile,  and  distinct  from  the  forms  that  pertain  to  adolescent  boyhood.  We 
find  here  all  the  characteristics  of  the  Polykleitan  body:  there  is,  in  addition, an  indication 
of  veins  on  the  lower  part  of  the  abdomen— a trait  which  we  have  frequently  met  with 
before,  and  which  already  occurs  on  some  copies  of  the  Doryphoros.  The  head  is  an 
excellent  piece  of  work,  the  hair  finely  incised  in  the  usual  Polykleitan  style.5  The 
feet  are  placed  flat  on  the  ground  side  by  side,  the  left  foot,  free  from  the  weight  of 
the  body,  being  set  slightly  forward  and  to  one  side.  One  arm  again  follows  the 
contour  of  the  supporting  leg,  according  to  a favourite  Polykleitan  scheme.  The 
position  of  the  right  hand,  held  with  the  thumb  drawn  in,  corresponds  to  that  of  the 
Idolino,  and  is  best  explained  if  we  imagine  it  to  have  held  a kylix.  The  left  hand,  a 
little  advanced,  carried  an  attribute  formed  like  a staff.  The  head  is  bent,  and  looks 
towards  the  supporting  side.  The  bronze  can  hardly  represent  an  athlete,  as  in  that 
case  the  act  of  pouring  libation  which  seems  to  be  here  represented  would  not  be 
appropriate.0  Some  heroic  or  divine  person  whom  we  have  no  means  of  naming 
must  be  represented  here.  It  is  precisely  in  the  Polykleitan  circle  that  athletic  types 
would  be  likely  to  influence  even  the  types  of  divinities. 

1 Drawn  by  Liibke  from  my  plan  of  the  basis. 

2 Longperier,  Notice  des  Bronzes  Antiques,  214,  ‘ Mercure  aptere.  ’ The  eyes  of  silver,  inserted,  the  nipples 
of  copper.  Height  o‘2i.  Cf.  Jahrb.  d.  Vereins  d.  Alterthumsfr.  im  Rheinl.  Heft  90,  p.  53. 

3 For  instance,  each  foot  is  pierced  by  a bronze  nail  which  fastens  it  to  the  basis,  a process  only  found  in 
earlier  Greek  originals.  The  colour  of  the  bronze,  too,  a splendid  dark  green,  is  peculiar  to  Greek,  and  more 
especially  to  Argive  works  (cf.  50th  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  127). 

4 The  back  is  specially  fine.  5 The  pubes  is  less  carefully  rendered. 

6 I at  least  know  no  instance  of  an  athlete  pouring  libation. 


Fig.  i 19. — Bronze  statuette  in  the  Louvre. 


"*  » • * 


* 


* 


# 


m $ 


..  « 


♦ 


* 


>■ 


% 


t 


• - 


■ * 


XIII. 

Bronze  Statuette. 


LOUVRE, 


Printed  by  Gleseckefc  Oevrient,  Leipzig  (Germany). 


XENOKLES 


281 

We  must  turn  from  this  exquisite  Greek  bronze  to  some  marble  copies  of  the 
Roman  period.  These  preserve  to  us  a work  of  Polykleitos  which  in  all  essentials 
corresponded  to  the  bronze  and  was  probably  its  prototype.  A youth  is  represented 
in  the  same  simple  attitude  of  repose  seen  in  the  bronze  and  witnessed  to  by  the 
Xenokles  basis.  Both  feet  are  flat  on  the  ground  ; the  left  foot,  relieved  from  the 
weight  of  the  body,  is  almost  parallel  to  the  other,  being  placed  scarcely  perceptibly 
forward  and  outwards.  Both  arms  are  lowered  : the  right  forearm  was  somewhat 
advanced,  and  certainly  held  an  object,  the  left  hung  straight  down  ; the  head  is 
turned  to  the  side  which  bears  the  weight  of  the  body,  and  is  inclined.  The  forms  of 


Fig.  120. — Athlete  in  Galleria  delle  Statue  (Vatican). 


the  body  are  less  full  and  powerful  than  in  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumenos;  the  time 
of  life  chosen  for  representation  lies  between  these  two  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Dresden 
boy  and  the  ‘ oil-pourer  ’ on  the  other : the  figure  is  an  epliebe  on  the  threshold  of 
manhood.1  In  scale  the  statue  is  less  than  the  Doryphoros  and  Diadumenos  : it  is 
just  life-size. 

The  statue  survives  with  the  head  in  a copy  of  the  Vatican  (Fig.  120)  ;2  the  head 

1 The  pubes  is  indicated. 

2 Gall,  delle  Statue,  251  ; Clarac,  856,  2168.  Mentioned  by  Michaelis  (Ann.  d.  Ins/.  1S78,  8,  G)  as  a 
‘ variazione’  of  the  Doryphoros  ; by  Helbig  (Bull.  d.  Inst.  1864,  30),  as  a replica  of  the  Doryphoros  ; [modified 
view  in  Museums,  186 — ‘betrays  unmistakable  kinship  with  the  Doryphoros.’ — E.  S.] 


O O 


282 


POLYKLEITOS 


belongs  to  the  statue,  but  has  been  broken  and  put  on  again,  and  a small  piece  of  the 
neck  is  restored.  The  head  is  in  bad  preservation,  chin,  nose,  and  almost  all  the 
mouth  being  new.  The  right  arm  is  restored  from  the  middle  of  the  upper  arm,  the 
left  from  the  middle  of  the  forearm.1  The  left  thigh  has  been  incorrectly  turned 
outwards  (a  piece  between  it  and  the  trunk  being  new),  and  the  shin  has  been  wrongly 
restored.  In  another  replica,  without  head,  in  the  Vatican,  both  the  feet  are  ancient.2 
Besides  these  two  the  Vatican  possesses  two  replicas  which  are  only  torsos.3 4  Two  more 
torsos  arc  in  the  Museo  Torlonia  and  in  the  Palazzo  Colonna  respectively.1  A replica  in 
Naples  corresponds  perfectly,  except  that  a chlamys  is  added  on  the  left  shoulder.  In 
this  case  the  original  type  was  evidently  used  for  a Roman  portrait-statue.5 

The  head  alone  is  preserved  to  us  in  good  replicas  in  the  Museo  Torlonia6  and 
in  the  Hermitage,7  and  in  a much-defaced  copy  in  Dresden.8  With  the  help  of  this 
material  we  can  form  a judgment  on  the  lost  original.  A work  of  Polykleitos  which 
exists  in  so  many  copies  must  have  been  famous  ; probably  it  only  represented  an 
athlete.9  The  bodily  forms  manifest  the  manner  of  Polykleitos  in  its  full  purity,  with 
new  exquisite  distinctions  indicative  of  the  period  of  life.  The  transitions,  especially 
at  the  edge  of  the  ribs,  are  less  hard  than  in  the  Doryphoros,  and  the  head  seems  to 
indicate  that  we  have  to  do  with  a somewhat  later  work  of  the  master.  The  figure  is 
closely  analogous  to  the  Herakles.  Small  locks  of  hair  fall  round  the  forehead  : 
these  are  parted  in  the  middle,  and  are  not  symmetrical,  but  are  arranged  differently 
on  each  side.10  The  hair  does  not  yet  cover  the  ears,  but  just  touches  their  edge, 
without  falling  over  ; it  grows  low  down  on  the  nape  of  the  neck,  ending  in  a curved, 
not  in  a straight  line.  The  hair  is  altogether  richer  and  more  individual  than  in  the 
Doryphoros,  but  is  treated  as  a whole  in  the  same  flat,  spare,  and  closely  clinging 
manner.11  The  forehead  projects  decidedly  at  its  base,  and  shows  more  variety  of 
modelling  than  in  the  latter  statue  ; the  mouth  is  slightly  open.  The  bend  of  the 
head  alone  gives  it  an  expression  different  from  that  of  the  Doryphoros,  an  expression 
of  mild  and  serious  character,  with  a touch  of  melancholy,  that  harmonizes  with  the 
tranquil  attitude.  The  old  ideal  of  Argive  sculpture,  a resigned,  self-sustained  repose, 
has  in  this  work  become  once  again  a living  reality. 

1 Ancient  puntelli  in  the  thighs  show  the  position  of  the  arms. 

Gall,  delle  Statue,  392,  ‘ Septimius  Severus.  ’ The  emperor’s  head  does  not  belong  to  the  figure.  Palm- 
tree  stem  as  support.  Both  forearms  new  ; one  can  still  recognize  that  originally  the  right  was  slightly  advanced 
and  the  left  hung  down.  Both  feet  are  ancient,  the  soles  placed  as  on  the  Xenokles  basis.  Good  workmanship. 

3 Sala  a croce  greca,  590.  A wrong  protrait-head  has  been  placed  on  the  torso,  the  whole  neck  restored, 
the  left  thigh  incorrectly  joined  on  (piece  between  restored).  Pubes  worked  over.  In  the  vestibule  of  the  public 
entrance  to  the  Museum,  torso  restored  as  Meleager  ; head  does  not  belong. 

4 Museo  Torlonia,  76.  Restored  as  a Uiskophoros;  the  head  is  a modern  imitation  of  the  Diskophoros  of  the 
Vatican.  The  right  forearm  to  the  wrist  antique  ; the  left  arm  with  the  diskos  new.  Palazzo  Colonna,  Matz- 
Duhn,  16.  Plead  not  genuine  ; torso  good  ; right  forearm  extended  forwards.  The  puntello  is  higher  than  in 
the  fiist  Vatican  copy. 

Naples,  Inv.  6055  ; Clarac,  925,  2351  ; Bernouilli,  Rom.  Ikonogr.  ii.  1,  p.  172,  15.  The  Roman  portrait- 
head  appears  not  to  be  genuine.  The  feet  are  restored,  but  the  left  leg  is  ancient  nearly  to  the  ankle,  which  gives 
the  attitude.  Bodily  forms  and  pubes  are  of  purely  Polyldeitan  style  ; the  round  chlamys  on  the  shoulder  is 
evidently  a Roman  addition. 

6 Museo  Tori.  469. 

Guedeonow,  83.  Conze,  Beitrdge,  p.  7,  note  5.  Good  copy;  only  the  point  of  the  nose  restored.  Hair 
on  the  top  of  the  head  carelessly  rendered  except  at  the  ends.  The  lips  have  incised  edges  in  imitation  of 
bronze.  Length  of  face  182  mm.,  chin  to  nose  = nose  to  eyebrow  = two  eye-lengths  (65  mm.)  ; width  of 
mouth  48  mm. 

8 From  Rome,  lately  presented  by  P.  Arndt. 

The  palm-tree  as  support  on  one  copy  is  evidence  for  this. 

J"  The  copies  match  very  exactly  in  the  details  of  the  hair. 

11  The  pubes  is  rendered  as  in  the  Doryphoros,  only  the  curls  are  still  daintier  and  richer  in  detail. 


BRONZE  HEAD 


283 


A bronze  head  from  the  same  villa  at  Herculaneum  (Fig.  1 21  ,a  and  b)1  which  gave  us 
the  beautiful  bronze  copy  of  the  Doryphoros  head  byApollonios  so  strongly  resembles 
the  type  we  have  just  been  discussing — which  we  shall  call  the  ‘Vatican  athlete 
standing  at  rest  ’ — and  corresponds  to  it  so  closely  in  scale,  that  one  would  be  tempted 
to  regard  it  as  a copy  from  the  same  original,  did  not  small  differences,  which  cannot 
be  due  merely  to  the  copyist,  bear  witness  that  its  original  is  to  be  sought  for  in  a 
distinct  though  somewhat  similar  work.  The  locks  falling  over  the  forehead  are  fuller, 
and  the  arrangement  is  more  symmetrical,  while  the  treatment  of  the  hair  round 
the  ears,  as  well  as  the  full  plastic  rendering  of  the  whole  mass,  show  great  similarity 
to  the  Dresden  boy  ; on  the  nape  of  the  neck  the  hair  ends  in  a straight  line.  All  these 
are  points  in  which  the  Herculaneum  head  differs  from  the  Vatican  type.  Owing  to 
a lack  of  skill  on  the  part  of  the  copyist — for  the  face  is  slightly  askew — the  expres- 
sion is  one  of  intense  melancholy,  amounting  almost  to  grief  and  distress.  But  the 
forms  are  essentially  the  same  as  in  the  Vatican  type,  the  forehead  again  projecting 
strongly  at  its  base.  The  original  must  have  been  later  in  date  than  the  Doryphoros. 

At  this  point  we  may  mention  two  more  Roman  bronze  statuettes.  One,  repre- 
senting a Mercury,  is  in  the  Museum  at  Spires  ;2  it  follows  the  type  of  the  ‘Vatican 
athlete  standing  at  rest,’  except  that  the  head  is  not  bent,  but  turned  straight  round 
to  the  right.  Face  and  hair  are  clearly  derived  from  Polykleitan  types  ; a purse  is  held 
in  Roman  fashion  in  the  right  hand,  a kerykeion  in  the  left.  This  is  not  a work 
based  on  a Hermes  by  Polykleitos,  it  is  only  another  adaptation  of  a Polykleitan  type 
to  a Mercury.  The  same  is  true  of  a Hercules  statuette,3  the  head  of  which,  however, 
has  already  lost  its  Polykleitan  character,  and  shows  that  type  of  youthful  Herakles 
which  sprang  from  an  Attic  source  and  became  current  at  a later  period  ; the  body 
is  a repetition  of  the  Polykleitan  figure  standing  at  rest  ; the  lowered  right  hand  held 
the  club,  the  left  has  the  apple. 

It  is  here  that  we  must  place  the  Idolino,  the  famous  bronze  statue  of  Florence,4 
for  its  motive  connects  it  immediately  with  the  series  under  consideration.  The 
principal  characteristics,  the  position  of  the  feet,  the  attitude  of  the  head  and  arms,  are  in 
essence  the  same,  yet  important  differences  are  to  be  observed.  The  left  leg,  free  from 
the  weight  of  the  figure,  is  placed  much  more  to  the  side  and  outwards  than  in  the 
Xenokles  and  kindred  Polykleitan  works.  Again,  the  way  in  which  the  left  hand 
hangs  down,  so  that  the  arm  forms  an  angle  towards  the  leg,  gives  to  the  figure  a 
special  individual  charm,5  and  is  without  parallel  in  any  of  the  works  we  have 
assigned  to  the  master  himself.  In  this,  as  in  the  position  of  the  legs,  expression 
is  given  to  a rhythmic  feeling  other  than  that  which  we  found  in  the  work 
of  Polykleitos:  a comparison  with  the  Paris  bronze,  for  instance  (Plate  XIII.),  which 
is  in  other  respects  so  similar,  will  make  this  clear. 

In  order  to  appreciate  justly  the  bodily  forms,  we  must  decide  the  age  of  the  boy. 
He  is  at  a stage  of  growth  midway  between  the  ‘boy  crowning  himself’  and  the 
Dresden  boy.  The  chest  is  broader  and  more  developed  than  in  the  first,  sparer  than 

1 Inv.  5610  ; Bronzi  d' Ercolano,  i.  Tav.  53,  54,  p.  187  ; Comparetti  de  Petra,  Villa  Ercol.  7,  4.  The 
measurements  correspond  to  the  St.  Petersburg  head  above.  Technique  and  workmanship  are  as  in  the  Dory- 
phoros of  Apollonios  ; the  eyebrows  are  incised  in  the  same  manner  ; the  two  works  may  be  dated  about  the 
same  time. 

2 (Harster)  Katalog  d.  Histoi\  Abt.  d.  Museums  in  Speier,  18S8,  p.  25. 

3 Known  to  me  only  from  a cast  in  Dresden. 

4 Best  illustrations  in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmdler , Nos.  274 — 277.  Cf.  Kekule,  Ueber  die  Bror.zestatue 
des  sog.  Idolino. 

5 Kekule  has  remarked  (p.  8)  that  this  is  a trait  which,  in  the  Renaissance,  Donatello  was  the  first  to  employ. 


Fig.  12 i. — Bronze  head  from  Herculaneum.  (Naples). 


THE  IDOLINO 


285 


irfthe  second.  The  same  result  is  arrived  at  from  the  measurements  : the  figure  is  of 
life-size,  like  the  two  others  ; the  distance  between  the  nipples  and  the  length  of  the 
foot  come  exactly  midway  between  the  corresponding  measurements  of  the  other  two 
figures  of  boys.1  On  the  whole  the  forms  harmonize  with  Polykleitan  style  ; the  hips, 
the  navel  with  the  depression  of  the  linea  alba  continued  below  it,  the  decided  hollow 
at  the  side  of  the  gluteus  of  the  leg  at  rest — all  are  Polykleitan  features.  And  yet  in 
this  instance  too  there  are  differences  of  no  slight  importance.  Above  all,  the  abdomen 
runs  down  to  a much  more  acute  angle  than  it  ever  does  in  the  work  of  Polykleitos.2 


Fig.  122. — Head  of  the  Idolino  (Mus.  Naz.,  Florence). 

I he  modelling  of  the  Idolino  is  still  under  the  influence  of  old  Argive  tradition,  such 
as  would  be  handed  on  by  the  bronze  of  Ligurio  and  the  Stephanos  figure.3  Again, 
the  Idolino  lacks  the  lifelike  and  refined  surface  details  such  as  we  find  them  in  Poly- 
klcitos  ; the  serrated  muscle,  for  instance,  is  not  indicated.  The  forms  as  a whole  arc 

1 Distance  between  the  nipples,  215  (in  the  boy  crowning  himself,  205  ; in  the  Dresden  boy,  225)  ; length 
of  foot,  243  (in  other  two  statues,  233  and  253  respectively). 

It  is  drawn  in  towards  the  membrum,  while  in  Polykleitan  modelling  the  abdomen  is  always  convex  till  it 
reaches  the  sudden  division  made  by  the  line  of  the  pudendum  or  the  pubes. 

3 Cf.  50th  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  137  seq.  The  Pompeian  bronze  Apollo  has  the  same  form  of  abdomen, 
which  in  other  copies  is  remodelled  after  the  later  fashion. 


286 


POLYKLEITOS 


wirier  and  less  full  than  in  the  figures  of  boys  by  Polykleitos,  and  more  intentional 
stress  is  laid  on  boyish  spareness  of  flesh. 

If  these  facts  forbid  us  to  derive  the  work  from  the  master  himself,  yet  we  may 
look  for  its  source  at  no  great  distance  from  him.  This  is  made  very  plain  by  the 
head  (Fig.  122),  which  bears  the  most  unmistakable  marks  of  the  circle  of  Polykleitos — 
more  particularly  of  the  period  just  preceding  the  Diadumenos.  We  see  the  customary 
skull,  elongated  and  angular,  the  characteristic  hair,  inclining  to  straightness,  the  various 
layers  of  short  locks  arranged  one  over  another  on  the  upper  part  of  the  head,  the 
symmetric  parting  of  the  small  pointed  strands  over  the  forehead,  the  drawing  of  the 
hair  on  the  nape  of  the  neck  as  in  the  Doryphoros  and  elsewhere  in  Polykleitos,  the 
position  and  shape  of  the  narrow  ear  with  its  long  lobe  attached  to  the  cheek,  the  same 
shape  of  nose  and  flat  nostrils — finally,  the  wonderful  limpid  purity  and  tranquillity,  so 
proper  to  Polykleitos.  The  distinction  which  marks  off  this  head  from  those  assign- 
able to  the  master  consists  chiefly,  as  it  does  in  the  body,  in  a more  abstract  treatment, 
in  a still  more  restrained  and  flat  rendering  of  form. 

The  Idolino  is,  from  technique  and  execution,  evidently  a Greek  original  ; only 
the  round,  moulded  basis  on  which  it  stands  must  be  of  Roman  date,  since  that  sort 
of  basis  was  not  given  to  bronze  statues  at  an  earlier  period.  It  is  still  plainly  to  be 
seen  that  the  feet  are  hollow  below,  therefore  they  were  formerly  fastened  with  melted 
lead  to  a stone  basis  in  the  usual  Greek  fashion.  Although  the  execution  is  of  a 
kind  characteristic  of  original  work,  yet  we  miss  the  degree  of  refinement  which  we 
have  a right  to  expect  in  a master  of  the  first  rank.  Our  studies  have  shown  that 
this  statue  cannot  be  by  Polykleitos  himself,  but  at  most  by  an  artist  of  his  circle, 
who,  however,  seems  to  have  followed  a path  of  his  own.1  We  may  venture  to 
remember  in  this  connexion  that  side  by  side  with  Polykleitos  the  artist  Patrokles, 
probably  his  younger  brother,  worked  and  taught  (cf.  p.  226)  ; we  conjectured  that  he 
had  attained  a certain  independence  of  action  within  the  general  tendencies  of  style 
prescribed  by  Polykleitos.  All  that  we  can,  however,  positively  assert  about  the 
Idolino  is  that  it  belongs  approximately  to  the  period  of  the  Doryphoros,  and  is  the 
later  rather  than  the  earlier  of  the  two. 

The  inner  surface  of  the  outstretched  right  hand  is  left  rough,  evidently  because 
some  object  lay  upon  it  ; the  fingers  are  in  the  same  position  2 as  in  the  Paris  bronze,3 
a position  which  can  only  be  satisfactorily  explained  by  restoring  the  statue  with  a 
kylix  in  this  hand.  The  left  hand  is  smooth  inside,  and  was  clearly  empty.  The  boy 
was  therefore  represented  pouring  a libation.  Now  this  does  not  fit  in  with  the 
current  interpretation  of  the  statue  as  a victorious  athlete,  since,  as  we  noticed  above, 
the  motive  never,  so  far  as  we  know,  occurs  in  statues  of  athletes.  If  not  an  athlete, 
then  what  is  the  nature  of  the  boy  represented  here  ? For  although  boys  serve 
the  libation — in  fact,  this  is  one  of  their  special  functions — yet  I know  of  no  single 
instance  in  all  ancient  art  of  a mortal  boy  performing  the  ritual  act  of  pouring 
it.4  In  the  same  way  they  do  not  sacrifice,  but  only  assist  the  celebrant.  II 
then  a boy  be  represented  pouring  a libation,  he  cannot  be  a mortal,  he  must  be 
divine.  Thus  the  youthful  river  god  on  coins  of  Selinos  pours  a libation  over  an 
altar.  We  have  naturally  no  means  of  naming  the  god  or  daemon  represented 

1 Cf.  my  remarks  in  Jahrb.  d.  Ver.  z>.  Alterthumsfr.  im  Rhetnl.  Heft  90,  p.  53- 

2 They  are  not  in  the  slightest  bent,  as  Kekule  ( loc . cit.)  wrongly  assumes. 

3 Cf.  the  bronze  published  by  me  in  Bonner  Jahrb . Heft  90,  Taf.  ii.  and  ibid.  p.  53- 

4 The  material  has  been  collected  in  Stephani’s  treatise  on  representations  of  libation  in  Compte  Rendu , 
1873.  Cf.  also  Fritze,  de  Hbatione  veterum  Graecorum , Berliner  Dissert.  1893. 


ARISTION 


287 


in  our  statue.  That  he  should  appear  in  the  image  of  boy-victor  is  a genuine 
Argive  trait. 

An  entirely  different  view  to  the  one  put  forward  here  concerning  the  style  and 
origin  of  the  statue  is  held  by  Kekule,1  who  classes  it  with  the  Munich  Oil-pourer  and 
the  standing  Diskobolos,  and  pretends  to  detect  in  it  the  same  Myronian  qualities 
which  caused  Brunn  to  bring  the  other  two  statues  into  connexion  with  Myron.  But 
there  is  no  trace  in  the  Idolino  of  just  those  very  characteristics  which  Brunn  found 
in  the  two  Attic  statues.  The  concentration  of  the  whole  attention  on  one  act  which 
governs  by  its  own  inner  necessity  every  movement  of  the  body,  while  beautifully 
illustrated  in  the  Oil-pourer  and  Diskos-bearer,2  is  entirely  absent  from  the  Idolino. 
His  attitude  is  quite  independent  of  his  act — the  libation  ; he  might  hold  any  other 
object  instead  of  a kylix  in  his  right  hand,  and  the  effect  of  the  whole  would  be 
unaltered.  The  principal  features  of  the  Idolino  motive  were  fixed  creations  long 
before  they  were  used  for  a boy  making  libation.  We  have  seen  that  the  motive  was 
current  in  the  cycle  of  Polykleitos  ; we  may  now  add  that  it  was  developed  directly  from 
the  old  Argive  canon,  and  differs  from  it  only  in  one  important  point — namely,  in  the 
reversal  of  the  sides.  The  motives  of  the  two  Attic  statues,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
new  creations,  invented  for  the  actions  they  represent.  In  the  case  of  Argos  the 
form  is  ready  to  hand,  and  significant  content  is  given  to  it  at  the  will  of  the 
artist  ; in  the  case  of  Attica  the  significant  content  brings  the  form  into  being.3 

A marble  statue  of  the  Palazzo  Barberini  in  Rome  (placed  unfavourably 
high) 4 must  be  a copy  of  an  original  similar  to  the  Idolino  and  belonging  to 
the  same  artistic  circle  ; in  fact,  it  might  almost  be  a copy  of  the  Idolino  itself.  The 
left  foot  is  here  placed  rather  more  back,  so  that  the  heel  is  raised  ; the  forms  of 
the  body  are  harder  and  more  restrained  ; the  head  is  very  similar.  The  arms,  so 
far  as  they  are  preserved,  correspond. 


VIII.  The  Basis  of  the  Statue  of  Aristion. — The  later  Polykleitan  School. — The 

Beneventum  Head. 

There  is  also  evidence  that  the  old  canonical  position  of  the  feet  employed 
by  Hagelaidas  and  the  Argive  school 5 was  used  in  the  cycle  of  Polykleitos  : this  is 
proved  by  the  basis  in  Olympia  which  once  supported  the  Aristion,  a work  of  the 
younger  Polykleitos  (cf.  p.  224,  and  Fig.  123).6  The  footmarks  are  here  intact,7  and  show 
that  the  figure  stood  on  the  left  foot,  while  the  right  was  placed  flat  on  the  ground  to 


1 loc.  cit.  p.  10. 

2 And  also  e.g.  in  the  boy  pulling  out  a thorn,  which  in  an  early  essay  I accordingly  referred  to  Myron  (De? 
Dornauszteher  und  der  Knabe  mit  der  Gans,  1875,  p.  79).  Kekule  [Arch.  Ztg.  1883,  p.  238,  note  26)  remarks  on 
this  point : ‘ It  is  quite  impossible  to  refer  to  Myron  all  ancient  works  of  art  which  represent  a figure  absorbed 
in  a momentary  occupation.’  Doubtless  correct,  but  the  boy  pulling  out  a thorn  is  at  least  one  of  the  works  in 
which  the  absorption  in  one  act  makes  the  whole  motive,  while  the  Idolino  is  not.  Again,  the  boy  pulling  out  a 
thorn  belongs  to  Myron’s  period,  the  Idolino  is  later. 

3 It  is  still  more  difficult  to  follow  Kekule  in  his  analysis  of  the  forms  of  the  Idolino.  From  what  has  been 
said  in  a previous  chapter  on  Myronian  form,  it  will  be  seen  that  within  the  fifth  century  there  could  hardly  be 
found  a sharper  contrast  than  between  the  Diskobolos  and  other  Myronian  works  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Idolino  on  the  other. 

4 Matz-Duhn,  mi.  Right  arm  and  left  forearm  restored  ; palm-stem  beside  right  leg. 

5 Cf.  pp.  52  sqq.,  190  sqq. 

6 Drawing  by  Liibke  from  my  plan.  The  drawing  in  Arch.  Ztg.  1879,  207,  is  inexact. 

7 Each  foot  was  29  cm.  long. 


288 


POLYKLEITOS 


the  side.1  This  is  the  scheme  of  the  old  Argive  school,  already  so  fully  discussed. 
To  understand  exactly  how  it  was  used  by  artists  of  the  Polykleitan  circle,  we  must 
study  existing  statues,  and  especially  a Hermes  type  which  is  repeated  frequently  and 
in  many  variants.  > 

I he  copy  in  Lansdowne  House  is  at  once  the  best  preserved  and  reproduces 
most  accurately  the  Polykleitan  style  (Fig.  124).2  The  god  stands  as  did  the  Aristion 
by  Polykleitos  the  younger  : the  right  arm  hangs  simply  down,  as  in  the  statues  from 

the  school  of  Hagelaidas — even  the  hand 
corresponding  exactly  to  that  of  the  so- 
called  Stephanos  athlete  ; the  left  forearm 
is  stretched  forward  horizontally  holding 
an  object,  doubtless  a kerykeion  ; the  left 
shoulder  is  lowered,  and  the  head  turned 
to  the  left.  On  the  left  shoulder  lies  a 
chlamys  arranged  with  great  refinement  in 
fine  natural  folds.  There  are  no  wines 
either  on  head  or  feet.  We  know  from 
the  figure  of  Pan  how  carefully  the  Poly- 
kleitan school  when  representing  divinities 
suppresses  all  peculiarities  not  purely 
human.  Chlamys  and  kerykeion  were 
enough  to  characterize  the  god.  The 
right  hand  was  empty. 

The  head  repeats  a Polykleitan  type 
similar  to  the  Dresden  boy  and  the  Petworth  Oil-pourer.  The  hair  is  parted 
symmetrically  in  the  middle  ; the  forehead  projects  decidedly  at  the  base  as  in  the 
‘Vatican  athlete  standing  at  rest,’  to  whom  the  bodily  forms  are  also  analogous. 

This  figure  can  certainly  not  be  referred  to  the  elder  Polykleitos.  The  forms  of 
the  body  are  lacking  in  fulness  and  vigour  ; they  are  spare  and  dry  to  a greater  degree 
than  is  usual  in  the  works  of  Polykleitos,  and  thus  approach  more  nearly  to  the  manner 
of  the  Idolino.  We  found  in  the  modelling  of  the  latter  a survival  of  old  Argive 
tradition.  The  same  tradition  has  evidently  influenced  the  attitude  and  carriage  of 
this  figure.  The  rhythm  of  the  composition  as  a whole  corresponds  to  the  old  Argive 
canon,  and  is  foreign  to  the  manner  of  Polykleitos,  who  always  knows  how  to  round 
off  his  work  so  as  to  produce  a more  harmonious  and  satisfying  impression.  But 
the  figure  was  undoubtedly,  as  we  see,  especially  from  the  head,3  made  under  the 
immediate  influence  of  Polykleitos,  to  whose  later  works  it  presents  marked  affinities, 
so  that  it  is  among  the  younger  members  of  his  circle  that  we  must  look  for  the  artist. 
We  suggested  the  name  of  Patrokles  in  connexion  with  the  Idolino  ; here  we  might 
think  of  the  sons  of  Patrokles,  one  of  whom,  Polykleitos  the  younger,  as  the  Aristion 
basis  proves,  actually  employed  the  motive  we  are  at  present  discussing.  His  brother 
and  teacher,  Naukydes,  was  the  author  of  a Mercurius,  according  to  Pliny.  We 
may  hazard  the  conjecture  that  this  his  most  famous  work  was  the  original  of 
our  statue. 

1 The  statue  of  the  boxer  Eukles  by  Naukydes  (Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  86)  stood  in  a similar  attitude.  The  foot  was 
about  33  cm.  long,  hence  the  figure  was  rather  over  life-size. 

2 Drawn  from  a photograph  ; badly  reproduced  in  Clarac,  946,  2436  A ; described  by  Michaelis,  Anc. 
Sculpt,  p.  446,  35.  Well  preserved.  No  restorations,  except  possibly  the  left  hand  ; head  unbroken.  Distance 
between  the  nipples  C23  ; neck-hollow  to  navel  (V365,  to  pubes  C53  ; workmanship  ordinary. 

3 Cf.  the  forehead,  which  is  modelled  throughout. 


THE  LANSDOWNE  HERMES 


289 


We  thus  obtain  the  interesting  and  not  improbable  result  that  Argive  artists,  most 
likely  Patrokles  and  his  sons,  though  working  side  by  side  with  Polykleitos  and 
dominated  in  many  ways  by  his  influence,  did 
not  cease  for  all  that  to  foster  old  Argive 
traditions. 

There  is  a replica  (headless)  of  the 
Lansdowne  Hermes  in  Berlin  ; 1 the  wiry 
spareness  of  the  forms  is  here  characteristi- 
cally reproduced.  Wings  are  added  to  the 
feet.  In  a third  replica  in  the  Palazzo  Pitti 2 
the  drapery  has  ceased  to  be  an  exact 
copy,  while  the  head,  which  seems  to  belong 
to  the  statue  although  the  neck  is  restored, 
has  been  entirely  transformed  in  character  ; 
it  is  adorned  with  wings,  and  shows  only 
feeble  remains  of  Polykleitan  modelling. 

The  head  is  still  more  altered  in  a second 
Berlin  statue,3  which  reproduces  the  drapery 
in  a much  simplified  form  without  interest 
or  beauty.  The  formation  of  the  body  in 
these  two  statues  is  somewhat  softer  and 
feebler,  but  otherwise  not  essentially  different. 

Another  replica  from  Aegion,4  an  inferior 
work  of  Roman  period,  retains  the  charac- 
teristic spare  body,  and  has  at  least  an  echo 
of  Polykleitan  manner  in  the  head  ; more- 
over, the  wings  are  absent  ; but  the  drapery 
is  completely  altered,  being  wound  round 
the  forearm  in  the  familiar  later  fashion.  A 
statue  in  Naples,5 6  with  a head  foreign  to 
it,  corresponds  closely  with  the  figure  from 
Aegion  ; the  forms  of  the  body  are  charac- 
teristic notwithstanding  the  alteration  in  the 
drapery,  and  are  faithfully  copied  from  the 
original.  The  same  is  true  of  a copy  in  Palazzo 
Colonna,  the  head  of  which  is  also  foreign.0 

Finally,  the  figure  was  completely 
transformed  to  suit  coarse  Graeco-Roman 
taste  ; it  appears  with  full  realistic  muscles, 

while  the  attitude  became  more  animated  and  more  nearly  allied  to  the  Lysippian, 
through  the  altered  position  of  the  right  foot,  which  was  now  placed  more  to  the 
side.  The  statue  by  Antiphanes  of  Paros  in  Berlin 7 and  the  ‘ Mercure  Richelieu’ 


Fig.  124. — Hermes  in  Lansdowne  House. 


1 Skulpt.  196.  Part  of  the  kerykeion  lying  on  the  arm  is  ancient. 

2 Diitschke,  ii.  p.  9,  No.  16.  Cast  in  Dresden.  The  right  leg  is  wrongly  restored  as  drawn  back.  The  end 

of  the  kerykeion  on  the  left  arm  seems  to  be  old.  3 Skalpt.  199.  Wings  on  the  feet. 

4 Central  Mus.,  Athens,  Kabbadias,  Cat.  No.  241  ; Ath.  Mi/th.  iii.  Taf.  5.  The  illustration  is  inexact, 
especially  in  the  face  and  hair.  Remains  of  kerykeion  in  the  left  hand. 

5 luv.  6073  ; Clarac,  942,  2411  (wrongly  given  without  pubes). 

6 Head  of  Trajan  put  on  in  a wrong  attitude.  Neck  restored. 

7 Skulpt.  200.  Found  in  Melos  ; head  new. 


POLYKLEITOS 


290 


in  the  Louvre 1 are  instances  of  this  transformation  of  an  original  whose  principal 
features  however  are  still  evident  through  all  the  changes.  The  same  hardly  holds 
true  of  a Roman  statue  from  Atalanti,2  with  the  turn  of  the  head  reversed  ; the 
statue  has  thus  acquired  quite  a Lysippian  air  ; moreover,  the  head  is  modelled 
on  Lysippian  prototypes.  Thus  the  original  ended  by  becoming  entirely  transformed  : 
instead  of  charmed  repose,  we  now  have  impatient  restless  energy. 

We  have  spoken  of  these  variants  in  the  order  of  their  deviation  from  the  original, 
but  this  is  not  the  chronological  order.  The  Atalanti  statue  was  probably  derived 
from  an  original  of  the  circle  of  Lysippos  himself — an  original  which  really  represented 
an  attempt  to  modernize  an  old  type.  From  this  Lysippian  original  later  and  inferior 
artists  borrowed  separate  details,  such  as  the  arrangement  of  the  chlamys,  and  com- 
bined them  with  the  bodily  forms  and  attitude  of  the  old  original  ; at  any  rate  we 
may  imagine  the  different  variants  to  have  arisen  in  some  such  way. 

At  this  point  may  be  cited  some  few  Hermes  heads  which  manifest  Polykleitan 
character  in  a greater  or  less  degree  (cf.  p.  231).  The  familiar  Lansdowne  head  with 
the  petasos  3 is  a sketchy,  flat,  incorrect  piece  of  work,  behind  which  however  seems 
to  lurk  the  same  original  that  is  reproduced  in  the  Lansdowne  statue.  A head  in  St. 
Petersburg,4  showing  holes  for  the  insertion  of  wings,  is  a more  faithful  mirror  of 
Polykleitan  style  ; there  is  no  definite  known  original  for  this  work  ; the  artist 
satisfied  himself  with  a general  adherence  to  Polykleitan  types,  and  added  the  head- 
wings,  which  are  quite  inappropriate.  Besides  these,  I know  of  two  heads  of  less  than 
life-size,  Polykleitan  in  type  and  related  to  the  Lansdowne  statue.5  They  have  small 
antique  wings.  There  are  two  more,  also  less  than  life-size,  wearing  the  round 
petasos,  and  in  style  not  far  removed  from  Polykleitos.6 

We  close  here  the  series  of  works  immediately  connected  with  Polykleitos. 
Of  more  distantly  related  creations  we  may  now  discuss  at  least  the  most 
important. 

And  first  the  bronze  figure  of  the  ‘ Praying  Youth  ’ from  Carinthia.7  In  my  view 
this  is  not  a Greek  original  dedicated  by  Romans  of  a later  period,  but,  to  judge  by 
technical  indications,8  a Roman  work  of  the  same  period  as  the  inscription.9  It  seems 
to  be  a free  imitation  of  an  Argive  statue  of  a victor.  The  style  is  not  Polykleitan  ; 
the  hard  and  spare  forms  are  more  in  the  manner  of  the  Idolino,  i.e.  they  point  to 
Patrokles  as  the  artist. 

On  the  other  hand,  a bronze  head  from  Beneventum  in  the  Louvre  (Plate  XIV.) 
is  a splendid  Greek  original,  and  belongs  to  a statue  of  a victorious  athlete  which  was 


1 Frohner,  Notice , 177  ; Clarac,  316,  1542  ; photo,  edit.  Giraudon,  1196.  Neck  new,  head  genuine. 

2 Central  Mus.,  Athens,  Kabbadias,  No.  240  ; Gazette  Arch.  ii.  Taf.  22,  23  ; Korte,  Ath.  Mitth.  iii.'p.  98,  B. 
Photos  of  the  bust  at  German  Institute  in  Athens. 

3 Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculp,  in  Gr.  Brit.  p.  467,  88  ; M tiller- Wieseler,  D.  a.  K.  ii.  304. 

4 Guedeonow,  No.  179;  Treu,  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  57,  wrongly  ascribed  to  Polykleitos. 

5 (a)  In  the  Louvre,  Salle  des  Caryatides,  No.  1487  ; Frohner,  Notice , 197  ; photo,  edit.  Giraudon,  1273. 
Length  of  face  14  cm.  Neck  new.  Turn  to  the  left.  Bad  work,  (h)  Vatican,  Sala  Geograjica : similar. 

B (a)  Set  on  an  insignificant  torso,  Museo  Chiaramonti,  589.  Turned  slightly  to  the  right.  Polykleitan 
manner  evident  in  the  hair.  Round  petasos  as  on  the  Lansdowne  head.  (6)  Palermo.  Placed  on  a torso  to  which 
it  does  not  belong  ; height  12  cm.;  sketchy  work. 

7 R.  v.  Schneider,  Die  Erzstatue  vom  Helenenbergc,  Wien  1893  ( Jahrh . d.  Samml.  d.  Oesterr.  Kaiser  A. 
Bd.  xv.) 

8 The  metal  has  the  yellowish  colour  of  the  good  Gallo-Roman  bronzes  of  the  first  century  a.d.  ; the  casting 
very  thick,  no  fine  chiselling.  The  eyes  are  not  inserted,  as  in  all  large  Greek  bronzes,  but  cast  with  the  head  ; 
all  these  are  indications  of  non-Greek  origin. 

51  Inscription  was  originally  only  lightly  cut  ; it  was  worked  over  in  the  sixteenth  century. 


♦ 


I 


XIV. 

Bronze  Blccid  of  a Boy. 


\ 


LOUVRE. 


' 


:* 


. 


. 


V 


' 


i. 


:-\rt  )u  f 


BRONZE  HEADS 


291 


taken  from  Greece.1  A wreath  made  of  two  sprays  is  worn  in  the  hair  : as  these 
appear  to  be  kotinos  twigs,  the  statue  probably  once  stood  in  Olympia.2  The 
essential  elements  in  the  structure  of  the  face,  which  projects  towards  the  middle 
and  recedes  in  large  surfaces  to  the  sides,  the  mouth  and  nose  with  its 
oblique  slope  and  flat  nostrils,  are  characteristically  Polykleitan  ; yet  there  is  at 
the  same  time  something  alien  to  Polykleitos  and  akin  to  Pheidias  and  the  Lemnia 
in  the  infinite  charm  of  this  head.  The  hair  is  at  the  stage  of  the  Diadumenos.  A 
peculiarity  is  the  asymmetrici  of  the  locks  of  hair  over  the  middle  of  the  forehead  ; a 
similar  treatment  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Polykleitan  Pan  ; only  at  the  sides  does  the 
arrangement  become  symmetrical.  Clearly  the  artist,  while  deriving  his  inspiration 
from  Polykleitos,  was  open  to  Attic  influence. 

The  no  less  magnificent  bronze  head  of  a boy  wearing  the  victor’s  fillet  in 
Munich  is  a kindred  work,  also  a Greek  original.3  Here  too  the  face,  especially  the 
nose  and  mouth,  and  the  shape  of  the  head,  are  closely  analogous  to  the  works  of 
Polykleitos,4  but  at  the  same  time  we  can  trace,  although  less  definitely,  a certain 
foreign  element  probably  due  to  Attic  influence.  A marble  head  in  the  Vatican,  the 
production  of  an  inferior  copyist,  from  its  great  similarity  must,  I think,  be  derived 
either  from  the  Munich  head  or  from  an  analogous  work  by  the  same  artist.5  A basalt 
statue  of  a boy  from  the  Palatine6  shows  the  same  analogy  in  the  head  ; the  body  is 
still  under  the  influence  of  the  old  Argive  canon,  but  a slight  turn  of  the  head  to  the 
right  (the  side  free  from  the  weight  of  the  figure),  and  a forward  movement  of  the 
right  shoulder,  give  a somewhat  easier  rhythm  to  the  composition.  The  master  to 
whose  hand  these  works  are  due  is  interesting  as  being  nearly  related  to  the  Argive 
school,  without  however  belonging  to  it. 

In  conclusion,  we  must  mention  a third  bronze  head,  again  an  admirable  original 
work — in  Naples7 — a boy  wearing  a wreath  or  a fillet  in  his  curly  hair,  and  therefore 
probably  a victor.  Face,  mouth,  nose,  forehead,  and  shape  of  head  again  show  clear 
marks  of  Polykleitan  influence  ; but  the  hair  and  the  expression  are  different.  T he 
same  holds  true  of  a marble  head  in  Berlin  8 

Thus  the  influence  of  Polykleitos  spread  to  wider  circles.  In  his  own  immediate 
surroundings,  however,  he  held  almost  absolute  sway.  Although  we  have  succeeded  in 
separating  to  a certain  extent  the  activity  of  master  and  pupils,  we  have  found  in  this 

1 Cf.  p.  18,  note  1.  Frohner  obtained  the  head  from  Beneventum.  Casts  are  to  be  had.  The  original 
shows  that  it  was  part  of  a statue.  The  technique  is  Greek,  but  the  chiselling  not  very  detailed  : well  published 
in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmdler ; cf.  Momnn.  et  Memoires,  fondation  Biot.  PI.  io,  n,  also  good  vignette  in 

Kalkmann,  Prop,  des  Gesichts,  p.  27.  2 Remains  of  small  leaves  in  front. 

3 Glypt.  302  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  216.  Brunn  supposes  it  a later  casting,  but  the  technique  shows  that  the 
work  is  a Greek  original. 

4 Polykleitan  character  has  been  recognized  by  Flasch  ( Philologenvers . Innsbruck,  p.  162)  and  by  Brunn 
[Glypt.  5th  ed.  ; Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  p.  658).  Kekule  sees  here  a further  development  of  the  style  of  the 
Olympia  sculptures  and  of  the  Spinario  [Arch.  Ztg.  1883,  p.  246).  I cannot  see  any  analogy  to  these  works,  which 
bear  the  impress  of  a totally  different  individuality. 

5 Museo  Chiaramonti,  475.  The  scale  seems  to  be  about  the  same.  The  hair  differs  slightly,  the  ear  being 
left  freer. 

c Now  in  the  Terme.  Photo  in  German  Institute  at  Rome.  Weight  of  the  figure  on  left  leg.  The  right 
hand  hung  down,  the  left  held  something  shaped  like  a staff,  the  mark  of  which  is  visible  on  the  breast. 
Twig  in  hair,  hence  a copy  of  a victor’s  statue. 

7 Naples,  Inv.  5633  ; Bronzi  d’ Ercol.  i.  73,  74;  Rayet,  Momnn.  de  /’ Art  Antique,  ii.  67  ; Comparetti  de 
Petra,  Villa  Ercol.  xi.  I.  The  line  of  the  wreath  or  fillet  is  quite  visible.  The  technique  seems  to  show  that 
the  work  is  a Greek  original.  The  head  has  no  connexion  whatsoever  with  the  ‘ Dancers  ’ of  Herculaneum,  which 
are  only  copies. 

8 Skulpt.  479,  where  it  is  wrongly  described  as  a replica  of  the  Naples  head  discussed  above, 


292 


POLYKLEITOS 


inner  group  of  workers  comparatively  little  personal  individuality.  Only  Patrokles 
and  his  kin  seem  to  have  shown  some  independence,  although  still  in  a very  limited 
degree.  In  the  circle  of  Pheidiaswe  found  much  greater  originality.  But  the  severity 
of  school  tradition  has  ever  been  one  of  the  essential  conditions  under  which  Argive  art 
developed  ; as  indeed  there  was  more  that  was  capable  of  being  learned  in  the  Argive 
school  than  in  the  school  of  Pheidias.  Polykleitos  did  not  excel  in  invention  or  wealth 
of  meaning  ; in  fact,  he  found  his  inspiration  for  a whole  series  of  statues,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  foreign  Attic  creations,  such  as  the  Diadumenos  of  Pheidias,  the  Oil-pourer 
of  Lykios,  the  Amazon  and  the  Diomede  of  Kresilas. 

We,  like  the  ancients,  know  no  creations  of  Polykleitos  except  youthful,  beardless 
figures.  This  springtime  of  life  is  chosen  for  divinities  as  well  as  for  human  beings 
whenever  it  is  at  all  congruous — as  in  the  case  of  Dionysos,  Hermes,  Ares,  Herakles, 
Pan  ; the  artist  seems  to  have  represented  the  Dioskouroi  as  boys  playing  with 
knuckle-bones.1  But  within  these  limits  perhaps  no  artist  has  gone  so  far  in  repre- 
senting the  more  delicate  shades  of  distinction  between  boyhood  and  adolescence. 
Nor  is  his  choice  of  motives  nearly  so  uniform  as  has  hitherto  been  believed. 

Again,  within  the  series  of  works  of  the  artist  himself  we  found  a development 
leading  gradually  from  the  Doryphoros  to  the  Diadumenos.  It  is  true  that  the 
harmony  of  reserve  and  repose  characterizes  all  his  creations.  Yet  the  Doryphoros, 
the  Amazon,  and  kindred  statues  have  more  freshness  and  energy,  combined  with 
reasonable  restraint,  while  the  later  works  are  penetrated  by  a softer  spirit  and  a 
greater  degree  of  sentiment.  In  this  second  period  the  master  even  sometimes 
abandons  the  walking  motive  for  the  standing  position  of  complete  repose — a change 
for  which  Attic  influence  is  no  doubt  partly  responsible. 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  verify  many  instances  of  the  influence  of 
Polykleitos  on  later  art,  and  to  trace  many  survivals  of  his  style.  But  the  most 
important  researches  in  this  part  of  the  subject  are  still  to  come. 

1 That  the  piteri  astragalizontes,  which  would  be  inexplicable  as  a genre  group  by  Polykleitos,  represent 
the  Dioskouroi  seems  probable  from  the  Greek  gem  published  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1174,  even  if  the  gem  is  not 
dependent  on  the  work  of  Polykleitos. 


SKOPAS 


PRAXITELES  EUPHRANOR 


SKOPAS  PRAXITELES  EUPHRANOR 


THE  succeeding  ages  of  antiquity  subsisted  off  the 
immense  achievements  of  the  art  of  the  fifth 
century.  Our  increasing  knowledge  points  with 
ever-growing  certainty  to  the  conclusion  that  the  greater 
number  of  the  most  important  types,  both  of  men  and  of 
gods,  had  already  been  elaborated  in  the  fifth  century.  In 
our  previous  inquiries  we  have  been  able  to  give  some 
proofs  of  this,  but  it  is  in  the  fourth  century  more  par- 
ticularly that  the  influence  of  the  preceding  period  may  be 
traced  for  a long  time  more  clearly  than  is  generally  sup- 
posed, even  as  we  can  trace  the  current  and  the  colour 
of  a mighty  river  long  after  it  has  mingled  with  other 
waters. 

The  Eirene  of  Kephisodotos  affords  a clear  and  well- 
known  instance  of  this  fact.  This  work  by  no  means  marks 
a normal  transition  between  the  style  of  two  epochs;  nor 
is  Kephisodotos,  as  he  is  generally  said  to  be,  a ‘ forerunner  ’ 
of  the  great  fourth-century  masters  ; he  is  one  of  them 
himself,  and  may  very  well  have  been  the  elder  brother — though  scarcely  the 
father — of  Praxiteles.  The  few  extant  dates  relating  to  him  belong  to  a period 
when  Praxiteles  must  already  have  been  at  work,1  and  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  assumption  that  these  dates  coincide  with  the  close  of  the  career 
of  Kephisodotos ; the  contrary  is  far  more  likely.'2  A serious  difficulty  in  the 
commonly  received  genealogy  of  the  three  successive  generations — Praxiteles  I., 
Kephisodotos,  Praxiteles  II. — is  caused  by  the  gap  of  half  a century  which  inter- 

1 The  Eirene  of  Kephisodotos  should  probably  be  dated  after  375  to  correspond  with  the  institution  of  the 
annual  offering  to  Eirene  consequent  on  the  victories  of  Timotheos  (Isokr.  xv.  109  ; Corn.  Nepos,  Timoth.  2 ; 
cf.  Wachsmuth,  StaJt  Athen,  i.  585,  ii.  433  ; Curtius,  Stadtgesch.  v.  Athen,  p.  206  ; Wolters  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst. 

1 893,  p.  178).  The  statue  was  vowed  in  374,  and  executed  soon  after,  i.c.  probably  in  371 — 370,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  festal  Peace  Congress  in  Athens  (Von  Stern,  Gesch.  d.  spartan,  n.  theban.  Hegemonic,  p.  149).  The  date  thus 
found  would  tally  with  that  assigned  by  Pliny  to  Kephisodotos  (Ol.  102).  The  large  group  in  the  temcnos  of  Zeus 
Soter  in  Megalopolis  seems  from  the  late  character  of  the  architecture  to  have  been  a work  of  the  younger 
Kephisodotos  (Dorpfeld  in  Ath.  Mitth.  1893,  218).  On  the  other  hand,  the  groups  of  Praxiteles  in  Mantineia 
fall  soon  after  the  rebuilding  of  the  town  (370).  Pliny’s  date  for  Praxiteles  (01.  104)  is  probably  fixed  by  the  battle 
of  Mantineia  (b.c.  362)  (cf.  Lowy,  Unters.  z.  Kiinstler  Gesch.  p.  64). 

2 Kephisodotos’s  sister  was  the  first  wife  of  Phokion.  Kephisodotos  was  therefore  a contemporary  of 
Phokion  and  of  Praxiteles,  lie  too  made  a ‘ Ilermes  with  the  child  Dionysos.’ 


2g6 


SKOPAS 


venes  between  the  dates  of  the  elder  Praxiteles  (cf.  supra , p.  102)  and  those  of 
the  two  younger  artists.  Probably  an  intermediate  member  of  the  family — father 
of  the  two  younger  artists — has  been  lost  to  tradition. 

The  Eirene  of  Kephisodotos,1  though  belonging  to  the  years  B.C.  375 — -370,  follows 
in  the  treatment  of  the  drapery  the  manner  which  was  in  fashion  some  sixty  years 
earlier  : it  goes  directly  back  to  Pheidias,  and  forms  a strong  contrast  to  the  whole 
intervening  development,  i.e.  to  the  style  of  drapery  that  obtained  in  the  time  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War,  such  as  we  see  it  in  the  ‘Caryatids’  of  the  Erechtheion,  the  Nike 
temple,  and  the  works  of  Alkamenes,  Agorakritos,  and  Kallimachos  ; it  abandons 
the  thin,  clinging,  semi-transparent  tissues,  and  turns  to  the  earlier  forms  ; once 
more  the  folds  fall  perpendicularly  from  the  knee  of  the  ‘free’  leg,  and  this  leg  is 
represented,  not  in  the  ‘ walking  attitude,’  but  only,  as  in  the  Parthenos,  set  slightly 
to  the  side  and  very  slightly  drawn  back.  On  the  other  hand,  the  infant  Ploutos2  is  so 
like  the  little  Dionysos  by  Praxiteles,  and  the  whole  motive  and  spirit  of  the  group  so 
akin  to  Praxitclean  works,  that  we  at  once  feel  that  we  are  no  longer  on  the  thres- 
hold of  the  new  epoch,  but  completely  within  it,  and  that  the  artist  is  intentionally 
striving  after  an  earlier  style.  In  a monument  of  such  political  import  as  the  Eirene 
this  was  probably  not  a mere  accident.  The  statue  was  set  up  in  the  early  years  of 
the  new  maritime  confederacy  which  (so  the  Athenians  hoped)  was  to  revive  the 
ancient  glories  of  their  city.  Thus  the  sculptor  in  his  image  of  Eirene — of  the 
Peace  for  which  the  naval  alliance  was  to  be  the  pledge — reverted  to  the  style  of 
the  brilliant  period  of  the  old  confederacy  under  Perikles. 

I.  Skopas. — Lansdowne  Herakles. — Hermes  from  the  Palatine. — Statues  with  hoot 
raised. — Ares  Ludovisi. — The  Meleager. — Athena. 

The  influence  of  the  Argive  artists  of  the  fifth  century  upon  the  Attic  artists  of 
the  fourth  was  especially  strong.  I shall  first  let  the  monuments  tell  their  own  tale. 

The  beautiful  and  excellently  preserved  Herakles  in  Lansdowne  House  (Fig.  125) 3 
reproduces  without  a doubt  an  important  original  of  the  fourth  century.  The  type  of 
head  is  thoroughly  Attic  ; its  predecessors  are  the  Munich  ‘ oil-pourer  ’ (Lykios  ? p.  289), 
the  standing  Diskobolos  (Alkamenes  ? pp.  90  and  260),  and  the  Florence  athlete  (p.  26), 
while  closely  akin  to  it  are  the  youth  on  the  relief  from  the  Ilissos,4  two  bronze  heads 
from  Herculaneum,5  and  other  analogous  works.6  Now  it  is  evident  that  these  heads, 
and  that  of  the  Lansdowne  statue  more  especially,  form  the  basis  for  that  type  of 
Herakles  which  has  been  assigned  to  Skopas  on  good  grounds,7  and  which  in  reality 
is  only  the  earlier  type  slightly  intensified  by  an  admixture  of  pathos.  I he  motive 

1 Friederichs-Wolters,  1210,  1211  ; Kabbadias,  Iffv.  \ uovc.  1 75-  A replica  of  the  Eirene,  restored  as  Niobe, 
in  the  Mus.  Torlonia,  290  ; a good  replica  of  the  child  Ploutos  in  Dresden,  head  antique. 

- On  the  Athens  and  Dresden  copies  the  head  survives,  and  strongly  resembles  the  child  Dionysos  of 
Olympia,  as  do  the  body  and  the  drapery.  The  little  head  from  Ikaria  is  also  very  similar  {Amenc.  Joum.  op 
Arch.  1889,  p.  474). 

3 Spec,  of  Am.  Sc.  i.  40  ; Clarac,  788,  1973  ; Michaelis,  Arc.  Sculpt,  p.  451,  61  ; Kalkmann,  Prop.  d.  Gesich/s, 
p.  61.  From  Hadrian’s  villa.  Very  well  preserved.  A replica  of  the  torso  among  the  restored  statues  of  the 
Palazzo  Massimi  alle  colonne.  Palazzo  Pitti,  Diitschke,  35,  is  a later  modification,  and  so  is  the  bronze  Colossus 
of  the  Vatican,  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2179. 

4 Kabbadias,  idr.  nova.  No.  869  ; Wolters  in  At//.  Mitth.  xviii.  p.  6 ; Von  Sybel,  Weltgeschiclite  d.  Kunst, 
Fig.  204;  Zeitschr.  fur  bild.  Kunst,  N.  F.  ii.  293. 

5 (a)  Comparetti  de  Petra,  Villa  Ercol.  Tav.  vii.  3 ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1302.  {/>)  Comparetti  de  Petra, 

loc.  cit.  Tav.  x.  2.  Probably  a youthful  Herakles  with  twisted  fillet,  olive-leaves,  and  fruit  ; looking  to  the  left 
like  the  Lansdowne  Herakles.  (a)  is  somewhat  more  severe  in  the  hair,  and  goes  back  to  an  older  original. 

6 e.g.  A good  head  of  an  athlete  in  the  Museum  of  the  Peiraieus  ; one  in  the  Terrne  Museum,  Rome  ( K 'om . 

Mitth.  1891,  p.  304,  2,  etc.)  7 By  B.  Graf,  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  p.  199  seq. 


THE  LANSDOWNE  HERAKLES 


297 


of  the  Lansdowne  statue  is  also  genuinely  Attic  in  the  freedom  and  boldness  of  its 
attitude,  with  the  left  leg  placed  flat  on  the  ground  to  one  side,  and  the  head  turned  in 


Fig.  125. — Herakles  in  Lansdowne  House.1 


the  same  direction  as  the  free  leg.  The  right  arm  hangs  down,  and  the  left  forearm 
is  extended,  carrying  some  object.  In  this  form  the  motive  is  purely  Attic,  and  was 

1 [From  the  cast  in  Dresden.  A good  illustration  from  a photograph  of  the  original  is  given  by  Kalkmann, 
Prop,  des  Gesichts,  p.  61, — E.  S.] 


298 


SKOPAS 


elaborated  in  the  fifth  century.  Kresilas  altered  it  by  the  introduction  of  the 
walking  motive,  and  by  giving  a more  energetic  turn  to  the  head,  and  used  it 

for  his  Diomede.  Later,  Polykleitos  followed  in 
his  steps. 

As  an  example  of  the  original  Attic  composi- 
tion I may  cite  the  interesting  statue  of  a young 
hero  (Fig.  126),1  which  must  belong  approximately 
to  440  B.C.  The  motive  is  precisely  that  of  the 
Lansdowne  Herakles.  A chlamys,  falling  in  firm 
vigorous  folds,  is  filing  over  the  hero’s  left  shoulder. 
The  stylistic  forms  of  the  beautiful  lifelike  body  are 
obviously  derived  from  the  Apollo  of  the  Omphalos 
(Kalamis  ? p.  81),  even  to  so  small  a detail  as  the  little 
furrow  above  the  navel.  The  head  also  is  connected 
with  the  series, which  I have  already  assigned  (p.8iseg.) 
to  the  school  of  Kalamis,  but  the  treatment  is  some- 
what freer  : the  hair  has  a strongly  plastic  quality, 
the  eyes  are  heavy-lidded,  the  mouth  full  and  open, 
resembling  in  expression  and  shape  the  mouth  of  the 
Herakles  in  Fig.  32.  We  therefore  have  here  another 
work  of  that  school  of  Kalamis  which  flourished 
alongside  that  of  Pheidias.  It  was  from  statues  of 
this  type  that  the  motive  of  the  Lansdowne  Herakles 
was  developed. 

Far  simpler  had  been  the  conception  of  Herakles 
in  the  Pheidian  circle,  to  judge  from  a copy  of  a 
Herakles  which  so  closely  resembles  the  Farnese 
Diadumenos  (p.  244)  in  the  bodily  forms,  in  attitude, 
and  in  bearing  that  it  can  only  be  ascribed  to 
Pheidias,  or  to  an  artist  influenced  by  him.2  The 
hero,  with  his  lion-skin  over  his  head,  his  left  foot 
at  ease  and  placed  with  full  sole  to  one  side,  looks 
straight  out  to  the  right  to  the  side  of  the  support- 
ing leg. 

Though  the  Lansdowne  Herakles  is  closely  con- 
nected in  conception  with  all  this  Attic  work,  it  differs 
from  it  in  the  bodily  forms,  which  seem  influenced  much  rather  by  Polykleitan  models  3 


1 Copy  in  Brit.  Mus.,  Newton,  Guide  Graeco-Rom.  Sc.  i.  No.  134,  from  the  Pal.  Farnese  ; Fig.  126  drawn 
from  a photograph.  Head  broken  but  genuine,  the  lower  part  of  legs  modern,  but  the  position  is  shown  by 
what  remains.  Puntello  for  the  lowered  right  arm.  A still  better  copy  of  the  torso  in  the  Louvre  (photo. 
Giraudon,  1289).  A replica  of  the  head  in  the  Lateran,  No.  891,  broken  under  the  chin,  wrongly  turned  to  the 
right.  Both  copies  of  the  head  have  swollen  ears  ; cf.  the  Riccardi  bust,  Fig.  66,  and  the  Diomede,  in  which 
the  chlamys  may  also  be  compared. 

- Statue  under  life-size  in  cortile  of  Pal.  Borghese  (Matz-Duhn,  90  ; Winckelmann,  Mon.  Ined.  78).  Head 
unbroken,  upper  half  restored.  Phot,  in  German  Inst,  at  Rome. — Similar  statue  in  Museo  Lapidario  of  Vatican, 
No.  132.  Attic-Pheidian  of  a rather  severer  type;  except  for  the  bent  head,  the  motive  is  the  same  as  in  the 
Borghese  statue.- — A statue  of  Herakles  in  the  Louvre  corresponds  so  closely  to  the  Ares  Borghese  that  it  must 
be  either  a later  Roman  copy  or  an  adaptation  from  the  workshop  of  Alkamenes  of  the  Ares  to  the  Herakles 
type.  The  head  does  not  belong  to  the  statue,  which  is  identified  as  a Herakles  by  the  lion-skin  on  the  trunk, 
which  is  ancient  (see  D’Escamps,  Marbres  Campana , PI.  40  ; Zeitschr.  f.  bild.  Kunst,  N.  F.  ii.  p.  24,  where  Von 
Sybel  wrongly  considers  the  head  to  be  authentic,  and  connects  it  with  Skopas). 

3 Cf.  also  Kalkmann,  Prop.  d.  Gesichts,  p.  60,  note  3. 


THE  LANSDOWNE  HERAICLES 


299 


(as  a comparison  with  the  Diadumenos  and  the  Doryphoros  clearly  shows) : the 
undulations  of  surface  are,  it  is  true,  softer  and  rounder,  but  the  forms  of  breast, 
stomach,  navel,  etc.,  are  those  characteristic  of  Polykleitan  figures. 

We  have  already  become  acquainted  (p.  248,  n.  4)  with  a direct  predecessor  of 
the  Lansdowne  Heraldes,  in  a terminal  statue  of  the  Museo  Boncompagni-Ludovisi, 
and  a torso  at  Dresden,  in  which  we  likewise  detected  a Polykleitan  structure  of  body 
combined  with  an  older,  Attic  type  of  head,  approximating  in  character  to  Kresilas. 
The  motive — the  shouldering  of  the  club — is  the  same,  but  the  position  of  the  arms 
is  reversed.  It  is  obviously  more  natural  to  shoulder  the  club  with  the  right  hand, 
but  the  position  of  the  arms  in  the  Lansdowne  statue  is  more  rhythmical,  and 
moreover  follows  the  Polykleitan  model — the  Doryphoros — more  closely. 

The  Lansdowne  Herakles  does  not  stand  alone.  Among  analogous  works  may 
be  cited  a torso  from  the  Villa  Borghcse,1  representing — as  the  long  fillet-encls  on  the 
shoulder  prove — either  a Herakles  or  a victorious  athlete,  and  another  torso  in  the 
Museo  Torlonia.2  Of  still  greater  interest  is  a splendid  bronze  Herakles  in  the 
Jacobsen  collection  ; it  repeats  the  motive  of  the 
Lansdowne  figure,  except  that  the  left  arm  holds 
the  bow  and  arrow  instead  of  the  club  ; 3 the  head 
shows  the  same  fourth-century  Attic  type,  and  the 
body  is  again  Polykleitan  in  its  forms.  Nor  must 
we  forget  another  beautiful  bronze  Herakles  from 
Dalmatia,  now  in  Vienna,4  carrying  the  club  on  the 
right  shoulder  ; here  again  the  slightly  drooping 
head  is  thoroughly  Attic,  and  recalls  the  Florentine 
athlete  (p.  261),  while  the  body  shows  the  influence 
of  Polykleitos.  This  same  combination  appears  in 
a superb  bronze  statuette  of  Zeus  at  Munich,  while 
in  a bronze  Zeus  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  127)5 
the  Polykleitan  influence  extends  from  the  bodily 
forms  to  the  whole  attitude,  which  is  closely 
copied  from  the  Doryphoros  ; the  head,  however, 
with  the  short  locks  brushed  up  from  the  fore- 
head, is  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  Lansdowne 
Herakles,  thoroughly  Attic  in  its  Skopasio-Praxi- 

telean  character.  Further,  a noble  bronze  statuette  of  Zeus  in  Munich0  manifests, 
although  less  clearly,  Polykleitan  influence  in  the  body,  combined  with  an  Attic 
position  of  the  legs,  and  an  Attic  type  of  head. 

The  Lansdowne  Herakles,  owing  to  likeness  of  the  head  to  the  later  Skopasian 


'Wr, 

ffl  ■ 

II  ~ 

: A »iV 

• 

,V 

■ > 

ri%  > 

/ .w-, 

\ ;f  LA 

i \ 

t , 1 

$ V 

0 ' 7 

, C A 

' ''  " ~ :’t. 

J urt't  ; 

1 • # P.Ky;,V/.r.  ; 

Fig.  127. — Statuette  of  Zeus  (British 
Museum). 


1 Torso  in  front  porch  of  the  villa  ; the  forms  allied  to  the  Doryphoros,  but  rounder  ; veins  on  the 
abdomen.  The  left  leg  was  somewhat  advanced  as  in  the  Lansdowne  statue,  and  the  head  was  turned  to  the 
left.  Good  workmanship. 

2 Museo  Torlonia,  5 ; allied  to  the  Doryphoros,  but  rounder  ; head  turned  to  the  left. 

3 Ny  Carlsberg  Glypto.  nyt  tyllaeg  1892,  No.  1039  a.  The  type  is  that  of  Herakles  ; remains  of  the  quiver 
strap  on  the  breast  ; the  position  of  the  fingers  of  the  left  hand  is  characteristic  for  holding  the  bow  and  arrow 
(cf.  the  statuette  mentioned  in  the  following  note,  the  ‘ Paris  ’ of  the  Aegina  marbles,  and  Berlin  Skulpt.  No.  51). 
The  statue  is  an  admirable  work,  but  the  form  and  ornamentation  of  the  basis  prove  that  it  is  not  an  original 
of  the  fourth  century,  but  a more  recent  repetition  of  such  an  original.  The  bronze  statuette  from  Thessaly 
(Oeslerr.  Mitth.  iii.  Taf.  7,  8),  with  Polykleitan  forms,  is  an  analogous  work. 

4 R.  v.  Schneider  in  Jahrb.  d.  Kunsts.  d.  Oesterr.  Kaiserh.  ix.  p.  135  seq.  Taf.  1,  2. 

5 Payne  Knight,  xlvi.  16  ; Clarac,  802  G,  1917  D.  Good  execution,  but  from  the  colour  of  the  metal 

evidently  not  a Greek  original.  Right  hand  lowered  and  holding  something,  left  hand  pierced.  Copper  nipples 
inlaid.  B Friederichs-Wolters,  1750. 


3oo 


SKOPAS 


type  of  Ilerakles,  may  not  impossibly  be  copied  from  an  early  work  of  Skopas 
himself. 

A statue  of  the  youthful  Asklepios,  which  must  have  been  celebrated  in  its  day, 
has  been  preserved  in  a copy  on  a medallion  of  M.  Aurelius,1  and  in  a beautiful  bronze 

statuette  of  the  Roman  period  (Fig.  128), 2 in  which 
we  have  to  supply  the  serpent-wreathed  staff  which 
supported  the  right  hand.  In  this  bronze  the  bodily 
forms  here  again  betray  Polykleitan  influences  ; 
further,  the  ‘walking’  motive  and  the  sharp  inclina- 
tion of  the  head  towards  the  side  of  the  free  leg 
recall  creations  of  the  Polykleitan  school,  such  as 
the  Pan  (p.  269  seq.)  and  the  works  allied  to  it,  while 
the  position  of  the  hands — the  one  leaning  on  a 
support,  the  other  resting  on  the  hip — very  closely 
resembles  that  of  the  so-called  Narkissos  (p.  273). 
The  statuette,  however,  avoids  all  sharp  transitions, 
and  has  a grace  of  movement  and  a suppleness  of 
modelling  such  as  we  seek  for  in  vain  in  those 

heavier  Argive  works.  The  head,  with  its  charming 
short  locks  brushed  up  from  the  brow,  is  genuinely 
Attic.  A beardless  Asklepios  is  actually  known  to 
us  from  tradition  by  Skopas.  Pausanias  saw  it  in 
the  god’s  temple  at  Gortys.3 

There  once  stood  on  the  Palatine  a beautiful 
and  interesting  statue  of  Hermes  (Fig.  129), 4 which 
has  now  been  removed  to  the  Terme  Museum.  The 
alert  grace  of  the  god’s  pose  already  suggests  the 
Apoxyomenos  of  Lysippos ; just  as  in  the  latter 

statue  the  right  leg,  which  is  free,  is  placed  well  to 
the  side  and  slightly  drawn  back  ; and  the  youth 
balances  himself  on  his  hips  while  the  gaze  is 
directed  to  the  side  of  the  free  leg  ; the  right 
forearm  was  held  sideways 5 from  the  body ; it 
doubtless  grasped  the  herald’s  staff,  if  not  so  ener- 
getically, yet  much  in  the  same  manner  as  a tech- 
nically exquisite  bronze  Hermes  in  Berlin,6  which 
is  also  quite  Lysippian  in  style.  Further,  the  great 
depression  of  the  left  shoulder — -while  the  right  is  raised  and  thrust  forward — is 
already  suggestive  of  that  fine  swing  which  marks  not  a few  of  the  creations  which 

1 Cf.  von  Sallet’s  Zeitsclir.  f Numis.  ix.  140  ; Nu/nis.  Chrou.  ser.  iii.  vol.  ii.  PI.  14,  3 ; Wieseler,  Getting. 

Nadir.  1888,  p.  152  seq.  Wieseler  very  plausibly  maintains  the  interpretation  as  Asklepios,  against  Wroth, 
who  had  suggested  Apollo. 

2 At  Carlsruhe,  found  at  Speier  : Schuster,  Bronzen,  PI.  27 ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1 75^-  Roman  work,  probably 
made  in  Gaul.  Ring  on  finger  of  left  hand.  Back  specially  good. 

3 It  is  possible,  however,  that  a beardless  Asklepios  in  the  Braccio  Nuovo  (Ilelbig,  Museums,  6),  with  a head 
of  later  Skopasian  type,  reproduces  this  statue. 

4 Matz-Duhn,  1046.  The  body  has  suffered  severely  through  long  exposure.  The  head  has  been  broken  off, 
but  is  undoubtedly  authentic  ; it  alone  is  very  well  preserved.  The  legs  are  ancient.  Replica  of  head  in  Catajo 
( Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelv.  52,  53). 

5 The  stump  of  the  arm  is  placed  backwards  and  to  the  side,  and  there  is  no  puntello  on  the  right  side  of 

the  body.  6 Antiquarium,  Inv.  6505  ; from  Athens. 


Fig.  128. — Bronze  statuette  of  Asklepios 
(Carlsruhe). 


HERMES 


301 


-at  any  rate  in 


can  be  traced  back  to  Lysippos.1  Now  the  Herakles  of  Skopas- 
the  statue  of  which  a copy  exists  in  the 
Louvre,2  and  which  has  the  type  of  head 
assigned  to  Skopas — has  this  same  move- 
ment of  the  upper  part  of  the  body,  and 
likewise  rests  one  hand  (the  left)  on  the  hip. 

The  extraordinary  thing,  however,  about  the 
Hermes  of  the  Terme  is  that  the  bodily  forms 
and  the  hair  are  still  treated  in  the  manner  of 
the  fifth  century  ; the  hair  lies  close  to  the 
skull,  and  is  divided  into  fine  locks,  pointed  at 
the  ends  in  true  Polykleitan  style  ; 3 yet  the 
forms  of  the  face  are  purely  Attic,  and  show 
that  the  original  cannot  be  earlier  than  the 
fourth  century.  The  head  fascinates  by  its 
exquisite  charm  and  subtle  refinement ; the 
eyeball  is  slightly  turned  both  inwards  and 
upwards  ; it  is  the  beginning  of  that  forma- 
tion of  the  eye  so  characteristic  of  Skopasian 
heads  ; the  bridge  of  the  nose  is  rather  broad, 
as  in  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles,  but  in  spite 
of  this  the  work  is  undeniably  somewhat  older 
than  any  of  the  works  hitherto  acknowledged 
to  be  by  Skopas  or  than  the  Hermes  of  Praxi- 
teles. The  motive  of  the  statue  has  been 
shown  to  be  one  of  the  prototypes  that  in- 
spired Lysippos,  and  previous  to  him  it  seems 
to  have  been  employed  only  by  Skopas. 

Therefore,  may  not  the  Hermes  of  the  Terme 
also  be  an  early  work  by  this  artist  ? 

There  is  other  authentic  evidence  to  prove 
that,  during  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
the  school  of  Skopas  not  unfrequently  fol- 
lowed fifth-century  models  in  its  treatment  of 
the  hair  and  of  the  bodily  forms.  The  Hermes 

on  one  of  the  sculptured  drums  from  Ephesos4  is  as  closely  connected  with  the 


Fig.  129.- 


-Hermes  from  the  Palatine  (Muse 
Terme). 


delle 


1 Particularly  the  one  called  Alexander,  and  the  youthful  warrior  in  the  Louvre,  which  may  also  repre- 
sent Alexander  (Clarac,  264,  2100);  further,  the  Herakles  type  of  which  a bronze  (Brit.  Mus.)  is  a specially 
good  example  (Clarac,  785,  1966).  Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  2172.  The  position  of  the  legs  is  that  of  the 
Apoxyomenos. 

2 In  the  Salle  des  Caryatides,  No.  1524  (published  by  Graf,  Rom.  Miith.  iv.  1889,  p.  193).  The  type  of 
head  on  PI.  8,  9 {ibid.)  belongs  to  this  statue,  and  this  only.  The  existence  of  so  many  copies  of  the  head  and  of 
only  one  of  the  statue  is  explained  by  its  frequent  adaptation  as  a term  (cf.  p.  66,  note  5,  p.  235),  and  this  also 
explains  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the  heads  are  reversed  from  right  to  left.  The  Paris  head  is  an  inferior  but 
an  authentic  copy  of  the  same  original  as  the  single  heads,  and  is  unbroken.  The  original  certainly  wore  the 
poplar-wreath.  No  copies  of  the  Paris  statue  have  come  under  my  notice,  but  the  coin  of  Sikyon  (Graf,  loc.  cit. 
213)  probably  reproduces  the  original  of  the  Paris  statue.  The  head  is  differently  placed,  but  in  so  rough  a coin 
that  means  little. 

3 This  is  probably  what  Matz-Duhn  means  by  the  ‘ reminiscence  of  Doric  types  ’ in  the  head. 

4 Friederichs-Wolters,  1242.  The  burning  of  the  temple  in  356  forms  the  terminus  post  quern.  The  relief 
is  probably  near  this  in  date.  Skopas  himself  made  a pillar  relief  (Pliny,  xxvi.  95).  As  no  other  artists  are 
named  in  connexion  with  the  other  reliefs,  these  were  probably  made  by  his  colleagues  and  pupils. 


302 


SKOPAS 


Hermes  of  the  Terme  in  the  treatment  of  the  close-lying  hair  and  the  broad  well- 
defined  surfaces  of  the  body  as  it  is  with  Polykleitan  models  ; at  any  rate,  every- 
thing about  it  differs  entirely  from  the  youth  on  the  Ilissos  relief,  from  the 
Meleager,  or  from  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  Even  the  ‘walking  motive,’  with 
the  arm  hanging  idly  on  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg,  recall  Polykleitos.  Thus 
everything  conspires  to  commend  the  view  that  the  works  we  have  grouped 
together  are  connected  with  Skopas,  and  testify  to  a phase  in  which  the  artist  was 
influenced  by  Polykleitan  models. 

He  was,  as  has  been  very  plausibly  conjectured,1  the  son  of  Aristandros  of  Paros, 
who,  since  he  worked  with  the  younger  Polykleitos  on  a votive  offering  set  up  at 
Amyklai  by  the  Spartans  after  the  victory  at  Aigospotamoi,  must  have  been 
connected  with  the  Argive  school.  Thus  Skopas  would  naturally  be  early  imbued 
with  the  traditions  of  that  school,  and  the  peculiarities  of  the  works  enumerated 
above,  some  of  which  may  possibly  be  ascribed  even  to  Aristandros,  can  be  easily 
accounted  for. 

Archaeologists  have  tried  to  trace  this  Polykleitan  influence  in  the  works  of 
Skopas,  but  by  looking  for  it  in  the  head  they  have  gone  completely  astray.  Only 
in  the  hair  does  a Polykleitan  touch  sometimes  occur,  otherwise  the  contour  of  the 
head  and  the  shape  of  the  face  are  absolutely  the  reverse  of  Polykleitan,  and  are 
invariably,  as  was  remarked  in  the  case  of  the  Lansdowne  Herakles,  dependent  on 
the  purest  Attic  types. 

From  the  Polykleitan  school  the  young  Skopas  appropriated  quite  a number  of 
formal  elements,  but  in  that  spiritual  conception  which  finds  expression  in  the  pose 
and  the  presentment  of  a figure,  and  in  the  forms  of  the  head,  he  was  entirely  under 
Attico-Ionian  influence,  thus  reproducing  in  the  fourth  century  a phenomenon  that 
had  its  counterpart  in  the  fifth.  The  Parians  to  whom  we  owe  the  Olympian  sculp- 
tures had  likewise  been  influenced  by  the  Argive  school  in  formal  matters,  though  in 
their  spiritual  conceptions  they  had  remained  genuine  Ionians.2  What  at  that  period 
must  still  be  called  Ionian  was  afterwards  entirely  absorbed  into  Attic  art.  We  may 
therefore  consider  Skopas  also  as  an  Attic  master. 

By  far  the  most  novel  and  audacious  of  the  works  which  we  attributed  to  his 
early  period  is  the  Hermes  of  the  Terme.  It  introduces  a rhythm  full  of  restless 
energy,  hitherto  utterly  unknown  to  statuary,  and  which  prepares  the  way  immedi- 
ately for  Lysippos.  In  this  statue  the  individuality  of  Skopas  bursts  forth  in  a most 
decided  manner.3  Yet  as  if  to  set  a check  on  his  own  audacity  he  shows  himself 
here  rigidly  conservative  in  matters  of  form.  The  Hermes  exhibits  a singular  com- 
bination of  fire  and  grace,  and,  though  Lysippos  eventually  surpassed  Skopas  in  the 
expression  of  nervous  tension  and  excitement,  the  internal  tenderness  and  warmth 
of  his  predecessor  were  always  lacking  in  him. 

Skopas,  by  representing  figures  with  one  foot  raised  on  an  elevation,  once  again 
forestalled  Lysippos4  in  another  motive  full  of  restlessness  and  of  broken  outlines. 

1 Bockh  on  C.  I.  G.  2285  b.  ; cf.  Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  287. 

2 Cf.  Archdol.  Stud.  H.  Brunn  dargebr.  1893,  p.  69  seq. 

3 A statuary  composition  which  is  known  to  me  in  two  torsos  seems  to  be  an  older,  hesitating  attempt  in  the 
direction  of  the  Palatine  Hermes.  A youth  of  delicate  form  (which  however  shows  Polykleitan  influence)  is  leaning 
his  weight  on  his  left  leg,  his  left  hand  rests  on  his  hips,  the  head  is  turned  to  the  right  like  the  Hermes,  but  unlike 
it  the  right  leg  is  not  drawn  back,  and  the  right  arm  hangs  by  the  side  (torso  in  Vat.,  Gall.  Lapid.  87,  and  another 
less  well  preserved  in  Museo  Torlonia,  38,  PI.  10).  An  inferior  replica  reduced  in  size  (Vat.,  Gall,  dei  Candel.  24) 
gives  the  boy  a Satyr’s  tail.  Closely  related  is  one  of  the  small  athlete  statues,  Braccio  Nuovo  (97 ).  Torso  only 
ancient.  Head  plaster. 

4 According  to  the  extant  dates,  the  activity  of  Lysippos  extends  from  350 — 300  (King  Seleukos  after  306,  cf. 
Lowy,  487),  so  that  the  period  of  Alexander  marks  the  middle  of  it.  Winter  ( Jahrb . d.  Inst.  1872,  169)  is 


APOLLO  SMINTHEUS— PAN 


303 


The  attitude  had  been  common  in  relief  and  painting  from  the  time  of  Polygnotos 
onwards,  but  it  scarcely  seems  to  have  been  adopted  for  the  round  previous  to 
Skopas.1  Thus  he  represented  his  Apollo  Smintheus 2 resting  his  right  foot  on  an 
elevation  and  bending  forward,  laurel-branch  in  hand,  as  if  to  play  with  the  mouse 
below,  while  his  left  hand  rests  on  his  side  according  to  a favourite  Skopasian  scheme 
already  noticed.  This  same  attitude  reappears  in  a statue  of  the  youthful  Pan — 
(except  that  in  this  case  the  head  is  raised  and  the  eyes  look  straight  out) — which 
presumably  stood  at  Heraia  in  Arkadia,  as  it  is  reproduced  on  a silver  coin3  of  that 
town  (Plate  VI.  35),  and  in  a statuette  found  in  the  neighbourhood.4  We  may 
surmise  that  this  Pan  also  is  an  earlier  work  of  Skopas,  or  perhaps  even  a work  by 
his  father,  since  it  must  have  been  executed  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.5 
Two  marble  copies  6 have  perhaps  preserved  for  us  a later  creation  of  Skopas  ; they 
represent  a delicate  boy  with  forms  allied  to  those  of  the  statue  of  the  striding 
Ilypnos,  which  we  shall  later  recognize  to  be  Skopasian,  and  with  his  left  foot 
placed  upon  an  elevation  ; the  left  arm  rests  on  the  thigh,  but  the  body  is  turned 
somewhat  to  the  right,  producing  soft  lines  on  the  whole  abdominal  region,  and 
giving  a momentary  character  to  the  movement.  We  get  an  analogous  though  far 
tamer  and  quieter  conception  in  a well-preserved  statue  of  the  Capitol.7  A youth, 
with  his  cloak  round  his  lower  limbs,  raises  his  right  hand  to  emphasize  some  quiet 
impressive  harangue,  and  lets  the  left  one  rest  on  his  leg,  which  is  well  raised.  In 
style  and  conception  this  figure  resembles  Praxiteles  rather  than  Skopas  ; the  left 
hand  hangs  at  the  side,  and  presents  a striking  similarity  to  that  of  the  Hermes 
at  Olympia,  and  the  head  is  also  related.  We  may  conjecture  that  here  too  Hermes 
is  represented  as  Logios  or  Agomios,  and  that  the  sculptor,  follower  of  Praxiteles 
though  he  was,  copied  Skopas  in  the  motive  of  the  raised  foot.8 

wrong  in  placing  Lysippos  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventies.  In  editing  the  inscription  of  Troilos  {Arch.  Ztg. 
1879,  146)  I conjectured  that  his  second  victory  fell  in  the  Olympiad  after  01.  102,  but  it  may  also  have  been 
considerably  later  ; and  above  all  the  wording  of  the  inscription,  as  Lowy  points  out  (/.  G.  B.  p.  76),  makes  it 
probable  that  the  statue  was  erected  long  after  the  victory.  The  statue  of  Pulydamas  by  Lysippos  was  certainly 
set  up  long  after  the  victory  of  408  b.c.  (Cf.  Urlichs,  Kunstsscliriftsteller , p.  26.) 

1 Cf.  Samml.  Sabouroff,  to  Taf.  114;  50th  Berl.  XVinckelmannsprogr.  p.  161.  K.  Lange  ( Das  Motiv  des 
Aufgestiitzten  Fusses ) maintains  that  it  was  introduced  by  Lysippos.  Kopp  ( Bildnis  Alexanders  des  Grossen, 
p.  18)  rightly  states  that  it  was  known  to  art  long  before  Ljsippos,  but  he  does  not  distinguish  between  sculp- 
ture and  painting.  Many  motives  existed  in  painting  long  before  they  were  introduced  into  free  sculpture  in  the 
round,  e.g.  recumbent  sleeping  figures  certainly  do  not  appear  in  statuary  before  the  Alexandrine  period. 

2 The  statue  of  Apollo  Smintheus  found  on  the  coins  of  Alexandria  Troas  from  the  second  century  b.c. 
down  to  late  Imperial  times  is  not  the  statue  by  Skopas  which  Strabo  mentions,  but  an  earlier  one  with  a different 
motive  and  of  much  severer  style  (Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  457,  Z.  53  sqq. ) A coin-type  which  appears  only  under 
Commodus  and  Caracalla  may  reproduce  the  statue  of  Skopas  (Plate  VI.  34,  36).  Weil,  in  Baumeister’s  Denkm. 
p.  1669,  agrees  with  me.  Overbeck  ( Apollo , p.  92  sqq.  : cf.  Coin  Plate  5,  25,  27 — 33,  also  5,  10,  and  p.  314)  is 
opposed  to  my  view.  According  to  Strabo,  the  mouse  was  in  a hole  under  the  round  pedestal  on  which  the 
right  foot  rests,  and  in  a coin  of  Apollonia  ad  Rhyndacum,  recently  discovered  (Imhoof,  Gr.  Miinzen  Abh. 
bayr.  Akad.  1 Cl.  xviii.  3,  PI.  6,  20,  p.  609,  No.  156),  there  is  something  undistinguishable,  which  may  be  a 
mouse,  in  front  of  the  pedestal.  [It  seems  more  likely,  however,  that  this  object  is  a raven  : cf.  Warwick  Wroth, 
Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Troas,  Introd.  p.  xvii. ; the  raven  is  quite,  distinct  supra,  Plate  VI.  36  = Wroth,  PI.  vi.  2 ; the 
Skopasian  character  of  the  statue  remains  none  the  less  indisputable. — E.  S.] 

3 Small  silver  coin  about  417 — 370  b.c.  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Pe/op.  PI.  34,  12. 

4 Berlin,  Inv.  7486,  from  Andritsena  {Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  p.  251).  Simple,  spare  bodily  forms,  certainly  from 

the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century.  5 Because  of  the  coin  and  the  style  of  the  bronze  statuette. 

6 Louvre,  Rotonde  d’Apollon,  Nos.  3065,  3066.  Clarac,  PI.  271,  2193,  2194.  Life-size.  Head  of  No.  3065 
antique  ; neck,  chin,  and  lower  jaw  restored.  Interesting  type,  with  brushed-back  hair  and  fillet.  Head  possibly 
does  not  belong  to  body.  3066,  head  modern,  support  of  left  foot  restored  as  a rock. 

7 Helbig,  Museums,  509  ; Clarac,  859,  2170.  The  left  hand  and  most  of  the  right  hand  are  antique.  The 
‘ Sandal-binder  ’ is  quite  a different  type.  I know  no  replicas. 

8 More  Skopasian  is  a small  bronze  in  Berlin  (Friederichs,  Kl.  Kunst,  1850),  representing  the  youthful 
Hera  kies,  or  an  athlete  with  a fillet.  The  right  leg  is  raised  in  the  act  of  striding,  the  head  looks  outwards. 
Its  excited  expression  recalls  the  Skopasian  Ileraldes, 


3°4 


SKOPAS 


There  was  yet  another  energetic  system  of  broken  lines,  produced  by  represent- 
ing a figure  with  both  hands  clasped  round  one  knee,  which  Skopas  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  transfer  from  painting  to  statuary  in  the  round.  The  earlier  con- 
jecture, which  referred  the  Ares  Ludovisi  to  Skopas,  seems  perfectly  reasonable.  The 
statue  is  certainly  a reduced  copy  of  the  Mars  sedens  colossiaeus  in  templo  Brnti 
Callaeci  (Plin.  xxxvi.  26).  The  figure  on  the  arch  of  Trajan,  in  which  Stark 
thought  he  could  identify  a copy  of  the  Mars , has  turned  out  to  be  more  probably 
a ITerakles  type  borrowed  from  a cult  instituted  by  Trajan.1  A seated  Ares  is, 
however,  something  so  curious  and  unique  that  we  arc  predisposed  to  imagine  a 
connexion  between  the  Skopasian  statue  known  to  have  been  in  Rome  and  the 
Arcs  Ludovisi.  The  style  settles  the  question.  To  begin  with,  it  is  not  in  the 
least  Lysippian,  as  is  now  generally  supposed.2  Let  the  head  of  the  Apoxyomcnos 
be  compared  to  that  of  the  Ares — and  if  there  is  any  one  whom  the  totally  different 
spiritual  conception  of  the  two  works  should  fail  to  convince,  let  him  compare  the 
foreheads.  The  Apoxyomcnos  is  the  earliest  statue  of  a youth  that  can  be  dated 
in  which  the  horizontal  modulation  of  the  forehead  is  represented  as  a wrinkle  ; 
in  the  Ares,  as  in  all  prc-Lysippian  works,  the  modelling  of  this  part  is  smooth. 
If  it  be  correct,  as  I believe  it  is,  to  attribute  the  Meleager  to  Skopas 3 (it  also 
passed  till  lately  as  Lysippian),  then  the  Ares  must  also  be  by  this  artist.  In 
both  the  heads  the  powerful  framing  of  the  eyes,  which  are  deep-set  and  peer  eagerly 
into  the  far  distance,  the  quivering  mouth  and  nostril,4  are  as  thoroughly  like  each 
other  as  they  are  genuinely  Skopasian.  The  Ares  Ludovisi  cannot  be  an  exact  copy, 
partly  because  it  is  a reproduction  on  a reduced  scale  of  a colossal  statue,  partly 
because  the  workmanship  is  hurried  and  superficial  ; further,  the  little  Eros  between 
the  feet  of  the  god  clashes  with  the  style  of  the  statue,  inasmuch  as  it  is  of  Graeco- 
Roman  type,  and,  like  a second  Eros  5 that  has  now  disappeared,  is  an  addition  made 
by  the  copyist.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  89,  note  8)  how  fond  the  Roman  artists 
were  of  representing  Ares  as  a lover,  and  how  they  introduced  this  suggestion  into  the 
older  Greek  works  by  some  trifling  additions.  Skopas  certainly  did  not  intend  to 
pourtray  a lover  lost  in  dreams,  but  a war  god,  of  his  essence  restless,  who  when 
he  pauses  gives  no  thought  to  his  personal  dignity  or  to  the  outer  world,  but  sits  as 
he  likes  to  ponder  over  fresh  feats  of  arms.  On  the  Parthenon  frieze  Pheidias  had 
already  chosen  this  attitude  as  characteristic  of  Ares  ; but  it  was  Skopas  who  first 
had  the  courage  to  work  out  the  idea  in  a colossal  work  in  the  round. 

The  Meleager  takes  rank,  it  is  true,  among  the  usual  statuary  themes,  yet  it  also 
is  genuinely  Skopasian,  fraught  with  fire  and  energy.  The  inclination  of  the  left 
shoulder,  the  energetic  turn  of  the  head  towards  the  side  of  the  free  leg,  and  the  bend 
of  the  arm  which  rests  on  the  hip,  have  already  been  often  noticed  in  Skopas,  though 

1 Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  iv.  1889,  p.  330  sqq. 

2 Friederichs,  Bansteine,  436  = \Volters,  1268;  Schreiber,  V Lndov.  63  ; Helbig,  Museums,  S83  ; Roschei  s 
Lexikon,  i.  490  seq.  M.  Mayer  {Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  41 ),  arguing  from  the  supposed  Lysippian  chaiactei,  suggests 
Piston’s  Mars  in  Rome. 

3 Graf,  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  218  sqq.  In  addition  to  the  replicas  mentioned  by  him  there  are  : Torso  in  Pal. 

Torlonia  (restored  as  Hermes)  ; torso  in  Louvre  (from  Rome),  1884  ; replica  in  Pal.  Doria  (no  chlamys,  head  pool, 
neck  new,  boar’s  head  old,  wrongly  adjusted  on  restored  trunk);  head  in  Jacobsen  collection,  1071,  mediocre. 
The  Meleager  of  Skopas  probably  once  stood  in  Tegea.  [For  the  superb  head  of  the  Meleager  placed  on  the  toiso 
of  a Praxitelean  Apollo  {infra,  p.  338,  note  3),  in  the  Villa  Medici,  see  Plate  XV.  ; Petersen  {Rom.  Mitth.  iv.  1S6) 
was,  I believe,  the  first  to  recognize  this  head  as  an  original. — E.  S.]  4 At  least  the  right  nostril  is  ancient. 

3 More  probable  than  the  other  restorations.  M.  Mayer’s  suggestion  (toe.  at.)  is  the  least  fortunate  of  all. 
A replica  (torso)  in  Naples  (Flasch,  Verhandl  d.  41.  Philologen.  Versamml.  in  Miinchen)  has  no  puntello  on  the 
left  shoulder,  hence  no  Eros  was  added.  The  god  in  this  replica  was  seated  on  a pillar,  not  on  a rock.  Shield 
missing,  but  it  may  have  been  fastened  on  separately,  as  there  is  a contact-surface  on  the  right  side  of  the  drapety. 


ARES— MELEAGER— ATHENA 


305 


in  the  Meleager  the  restless  vitality  is  intensified  to  a degree  which  makes  the 
Lansdowne  Herakles  and  the  Palatine  Hermes  appear  simple  and  even  tranquil 
by  comparison. 

The  motive  of  the  Meleager  reminds  me  of  a remarkable  type  of  Athena,  which 
arose  I incline  to  think  from  the  fiery  genius  of  Skopas.  The  goddess  is  conceived 
somewhat  like  a Joan  of  Arc,  in  the  semblance  of  a young,  still  undeveloped  girl  ; 
her  mantle  is  wrapt  about  her  in  manlike  fashion,  her  left  hand  is  firmly  placed  on  her 
hip,  while  with  her  right  she  grasps  the  spear  ; vibrant  with  courage  and  enthusiasm, 
her  face  slightly  upturned,  she  looks  out  into  space  (Fig.  130).1  The  deep-set  eyes 
and  their  well-defined  cavity,  the  open  mouth,  and  the  whole  expression  recall  the 
Skopasian  manner.  An  external  circumstance  confirms  the  conjecture.  Beside  the 
goddess  on  her  right  hand  may  be  seen  a Triton  ; the  figure  does  not  serve  as  a 
support,  still  less  can  such  an  unusual  attribute  be  a copyist’s  addition.  Now  we  know 
that  near  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Athena  at  Alalkomenai  there  was  a brook  called 
Triton,  where,  according  to  the  Boeotian  legend,  Athena  was  born  and  brought  up.2 
To  this  story  the  statue  obviously  refers,3  and  therefore  Athena  is  represented  as  still 
quite  a young  girl.  Skopas  made  a marble  statue  of  her  to  stand  in  front  of  the 
temple  of  the  Ismenian  Apollo  at  Thebes.4  At  a time  when  that  city  was  making 
an  energetic  claim  to  the  leadership  of  Boeotia,  it  would  be  only  natural  to  lay  stress 
on  the  legend  of  neighbouring  Alalkomenai,  and  to  represent  the  goddess  as  the 
maiden  born  and  brought  up  on  the  stream  Triton,  in  that  Boeotian  land  over  which 
Thebes  was  to  rule.  Of  course  Skopas  may  also  have  worked  for  Alalkomenai,  and, 
as  we  know  that  the  shrine  was  plundered  by  Sulla,  the  statue  might  have  been  taken 
to  Rome  and  copied  there.5  The  somewhat  spare  forms  and  the  treatment  of  the 
drapery  suggest  that  the  statue  is  one  of  the  master’s  earlier  creations.  His  later 
treatment  of  drapery  is  exemplified  in  his  Apollo  Kitharoidos,  of  which  a copy  has 
been  preserved  to  us  in  the  famous  Vatican  statue,6  and  which  is  another  example  of 
the  vigour  of  Skopasian  conception. 

If  we  consider  the  treatment  of  the  nude,  we  find  that  in  this  respect  the  Ares 
and  the  Meleager  are  again  intimately  connected  ; the  forms  show,  moreover,  that 
(supposing  our  attribution  of  them  to  Skopas  be  correct)  both  statues  can  only  belong 
to  the  artist’s  later  works,  so  entirely  does  the  treatment  of  the  body  differ  from  that 
observed  in  those  statues  which  we  ascribed  to  his  earlier  period,  and  which  show 
dependence  upon  Polyklcitos.  A great  revolution  has  taken  place : instead  of  being 

1 Statue  in  Casino  Rospigliosi,  Matz-Duhn,  621  ; Miiller-Wieseler,  ii.  233  ; Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverk. 
No.  hi.  Replicas  : (a)  Florence,  Uffizi,  Diitschke,  iii.  No.  152.  Very  good  workmanship  ; the  head  is  genuine,  the 
neck  and  upper  part  of  the  breast  restored.  Photo,  ed.  Alinari,  1 295.  (6)  Berlin,  Sktilpt.  73  ; Bull.  Comm,  di  Roma, 

1887,  p.  169  ; Mon.  d.  Inst.  Supp.  27,  1.  The  head  alone  in  (c)  Glienecke  (Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsahg.  1438), 
{d)  Museo  Chiaramonti,  558  (Helbig,  Museums,  107),  and  ( e ) Berlin,  No.  80.  It  is  purely  arbitrary  and  unscientific 
to  make  out  the  head  to  be  Hellenistic,  as  is  usually  done.  2 Paus.  ix.  33,  7 ; Strabo,  p.  413. 

3 As  the  Triton  beside  an  Aphrodite  in  Dresden  refers  to  her  birth  from  Ocean.  Arch.  Anz.  1894,  p.  29. 

4 Paus.  ix.  10,  2.  Opposite  a Hermes  by  Pheidias.  Brunn  ( Bayr . Sitzungsber.  1880,  p.  459)  refutes  Klein’s 
hypothesis  that  the  two  statues  (called  Pronaoi ) were  necessarily  contemporary  in  date. 

5 The  original  was,  to  judge  by  the  replicas,  probably  bronze. 

® Cf.  Hoffmann,  Philologies,  1889,  678  seq.  ; Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  147  ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  463.  The  Palatine 
Apollo  singing  appears  on  the  coins  of  Nero,  not  those  of  Augustus.  (Overbeck,  Apollon,  Miinztafel  v.  47,  48, 
50,  51).  The  Apollo  with  the  kylix  on  coins  of  Augustus  ( ibid.  v.  43)  was  probably  the  original  of  the  Barberini 
statue  in  Munich,  which  has  been  (p.  88)  referred  to  Agorakritos  (cf.  Studniczka,  Rom.  Mitth.  1S88,  296,  who 
starts  from  the  untenable  premise  that  the  coins  of  Augustus  reproduce  the  Apollo  of  Skopas). — The  Vatican 
statue  (Helbig,  Museums,  267)  is  a poor  copy,  much  worked  over,  mouth  and  chin  restored. — A replica  in 
Stockholm  (Overbeck,  Apollon,  p.  186,  2).  The  beautiful  head  in  the  British  Museum  (Newton,  Guide  Gr.-Rom. 
Sculpt,  ii.  99)  is  a better  copy  of  the  head.  The  hair  is  waved  differently.  Pathos  is  expressed  by  the  move- 
ment of  the  eyebrows. — Overbeck,  loc.  cit.  186,  No.  3,  1,  is  an  older  type  of  the  late  fifth  century. 


Fig.  130. — Statue  of  Athena  in  the  Uffizi. 


r 


* 


• • • fti**'*  • 


H f 


- 

- 


xv. 

Head  of  Meleager , placed  upon  a Praxiteleau  Apollo. 


VILLA  MEDICI. 


<£.*•  t ■ -'1 


PRAXITELES 


307 


divided  into  clear,  sharply  defined  planes,  the  various  surfaces  melt  insensibly  into 
each  other  ; the  chest  is  narrower,  the  navel  is  no  longer  flat  as  in  Polykleitan  works, 
but  it  is  indicated  by  a soft  depression,  and  the  hard  modulation  of  the  abdominal 
muscles  has  disappeared. 

This  treatment  of  the  nude  is  still  quite  foreign  to  the  sculptures  of  the  Mauso- 
leum or  to  the  great  sculptured  column  of  Ephesos.  The  change  cannot  therefore 
have  taken  place  before  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  ; it  is  however  complete 
in  the  youth  on  the  Ilissos  relief  (in  this  respect  it  entirely  accords  with  the 
Meleager),  and  in  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  These  works  must  be  about  contem- 
porary with  the  Meleager  and  the  Ares.  The  Skopasian  Herakles  in  the  Louvre  is 
somewhat  older,  and  is  more  nearly  akin  to  the  earlier  group,  and  forms  a kind  of 
mean  between  the  two  series. 

The  same  revolution  of  the  treatment  of  the  nude  makes  itself  felt  in  the  work  of 
Praxiteles,  where  its  various  stages  can  be  far  more  easily  traced.  There  will  be 
more  to  say  about  Skopas  in  another  connexion,  but  for  the  present  it  seems  best  to 
pursue  further  the  point  of  view  suggested  by  the  treatment  of  the  male  nude. 

II.  Praxiteles. — Date  of  the  Hermes. — Works  of  the  Artist’s  Early  and  Middle 
Period. — Figures  leaning  on  a support ; the  Satyr  and  the  Eubouleus. — A Forks 
of  the  Artist's  Later  Period ; the  Hermes  and  Kindred  Statues. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  art  of  Praxiteles  rests  primarily  on  the  extant  original 
statue — the  Hermes  of  Olympia.  It  is  of  the  very  highest  importance  to  obtain  a 
more  definite  date  for  this  work,  and  to  find  out  whether  it  belongs  to  the  youth  of  the 
artist,  as  Brunn  asserts,1  or  to  his  later  period. 

It  has  just  been  remarked  that  the  Hermes  is  connected  stylistically  only  with 
the  later  works  of  Skopas,  and  that  therefore  it  must  belong  to  the  second  half  of 
the  fourth  century.  This  can  be  confirmed  by  another  most  convincing,  although 
external,  piece  of  evidence  derived  from  the  actual  basis  of  the  statue.  All  its 
essential  parts  have  been  recovered  and  used  for  the  reconstruction  in  the  Museum 
at  Olympia.'2  It  entirely  differs  from  the  ordinary  Greek  basis  of  the  fifth  and  early 
fourth  century  in  height,  in  both  the  upper  and  lower  mouldings,  and  in  material. 
The  high  moulded  shape  of  the  Hermes  basis  occurs  in  Olympia  and  elsewhere 
only  on  bases  which  cannot  be  dated  earlier  than  the  Alexandrine  period.  Such 
are  the  three  bases  of  the  artist  Sophokles  in  Olympia,3  which  correspond  to  the 
Hermes  bases,  except  that  their  lower  moulding  is  richer  (the  cornice  blocks  are 
missing).  Others  are  the  basis  of  a statue  by  Sthennis 4 dedicated  by  King 
Lysimachos  (306 — 281),  and  the  basis  of  one  of  the  works  of  Xenokrates,5  both  in 
the  Amphiareion  at  Oropos.  In  the  Graeco-Roman  period  this  form  of  basis 
became  quite  common  in  Olympia  as  in  other  sanctuaries.  As  regards  material,  the 
Hermes  basis  is  made  of  white  limestone,  only  the  lower  block  being  of  grey  lime- 

1 Brunn,  in  Deutsche  Rundschau,  viii.  1882,  p.  188  seq.  Kekule  was  formerly  the  only  opponent  of  this  view. 
He  saw  in  the  Hermes  ‘no  youthful  work, but  an  example  of  the  full  maturity  of  his  (Praxiteles’s)  powers  of  conception 
and  execution  ’ (Baedeker's  Greece,  p.  97).  Of  late  Overbeck  has  published  a more  detailed  refutation  of  Brunn’s 
opinion  (Sticks.  Ber.  1893,  p.  46  seq.),  but  adds  no  positive  information  about  the  date  of  the  Hermes. 

2 Cf.  Ausgrab.  v.  Olympia,  Bd.  v.  9. 

3 Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  123 — 125.  According  to  Ldwy’s  very  probable  hypothesis  (I.  G.  B.  p.  384),  this  artist  was 
mentioned  by  Pliny  among  the  contemporaries  of  Alexander  in  the  121st  Olympiad,  in  Blc.  xxxiv.  51,  where  his 
name  should  probably  be  restored  from  the  corrupt  fucles  of  tire  MSS. 

4 Lbwy,  I.  G.  B.  103  a (p.  384) ; ’Erp-pp..  apx . 1885,  p.  102,  3 ; C.  I.  Gr.  Sept.  279. 

5 Lbwy,  135  b (p.  387)  ; ’E q>r,y..  apX.  1886,  p.  55,  17  ; C.  I.  Gr.  Sept.  332. 


PRAXITELES 


308 

stone  with  round  dark  spots  on  the  surface.  Several  varieties  of  this  white  and  grey 
limestone  occur  on  the  bases  of  Olympia,  but  only  from  the  time  of  Alexander 
downwards.  The  limestone  of  the  earlier  bases  in  Olympia  is  always  of  that  dark 
black  sort  which  already  occurs  at  an  early  period,  and  was  subsequently  much 
affected  in  the  circle  of  Polykleitos.1  The  earliest  dated  analogies  in  Olympia  are 
afforded  by  the  bases  of  the  six  Zeus  statues  called  Zanes,  which  were  erected  out 
of  the  fines  which  the  Athenians  paid,  01.  112  (B.C.  332),  for  the  misdemeanours 
of  one  of  their  citizens.2  These  bases  follow  the  earlier  shape  without  moulding, 
which  was  chosen  because  the  statues  continued  a series  of  six  earlier  Zanes, 
erected  Ol.  98  (b.C.  388).  On  the  other  hand,  the  material  differs  from  that  of  the 
preceding  Zanes  ; it  consists  of  white  limestone  alternating  with  blue-black  and 
with  white  conglomerate.  Besides  these  there  is  a red  and  white  conglomerate,  never 
seen  in  earlier  times,  but  to  be  found  in  the  bases  of  the  statues  by  Sophokles.3 

These  facts  point  to  the  second  half  of  the  century  as  the  date  of  the  Hermes,  so 
that  the  statue  cannot  be,  as  some  maintain,4  a record  of  the  peace  concluded  after 
the  events  of  the  Anolympiad  and  the  combat  between  the  Arkadians  and  the 
Eleians  in  the  Altis  in  B.C.  363.  Nor  was  there  any  inherent  probability  in  this 
date,  seeing  that  the  reconciliation  between  the  two  states  was  a hollow  one,  arranged 
by  the  aristocratic  party  in  Mantineia  : the  suggestion,  however,  that  Hermes  the 
god  of  Arkadia  was  represented  as  nursing  Dionysos  the  god  of  Elis,  in  token  of 
the  union  of  these  two  districts,  is  certainly  correct.  I accordingly  incline  to  refer 
it  to  a period  twenty  years  later  (B.C.  343),  when  the  aristocratic  party  in  Elis,  in 
league  with  the  Arkadians,5 6 7  won  a decisive  victory  over  the  democratic  party,  and 
then  formed  an  alliance  with  Philip  for  their  own  protection.  This  was  a suitable 
occasion  for  fresh  Eleian  dedications  at  Olympia,0  and  the  Hermes  represented  as 
nursing  the  Eleian  Dionysos  might  well  be  set  up  as  a thank-offering  to  the 
Arkadians  for  their  aid.  At  the  same  time  that  he  made  the  Hermes  at  Olympia  ' 
Praxiteles  must  have  certainly  made  a Dionysos  for  this  god’s  temple  at  Elis  ; 
the  reproduction  of  the  statue  on  a coin  of  Hadrian 8 shows  that  in  design  it  was 
very  closely  akin  to  the  Hermes. 

1 Quite  different  from  the  dark  blue-black  limestone,  out  of  which  so  many  bases  in  Olympia  in  the  fifth 
or  fourth  centuries  are  made  (also  those  from  the  circle  of  Polykleitos,  Naukydes,  Daidalos,  Kleon). 

2 Pans.  v.  21,  5 seq. 

3 All  the  Zanes  set  up  in  01.  112  (Nos.  7 — 12)  had  one  kind  of  basis,  made  of  three  superimposed  cube-shaped 
blocks.  The  lowest  block  is  always  of  poros  ; the  middle  one  of  white  limestone  (yellow  and  of  finer  texture, 
like  giallo  antico  in  No.  10,  missing  in  No.  12;  cf.  Arch.  Ztg.  1879,  p.  45  seq.);  the  upper  block  is  black 
limestone  with  white  veins  in  8,  9,  10,  12  ; it  is  missing  in  7 ; red-white  conglomerate  in  No.  n.  Two  blocks 
of  the  same  material  belonged  to  the  Sophokles  bases. 

4 Purgold,  in  Histor.  u.  philol.  Aufsiitze  E.  Curtins  gew.  p.  233  seq.  Dorpfeld’s  recent  investigations  have 
shown  ( Olympia , Textbd.  ii.  33,  36)  that  the  alteration  in  the  Heraion  assumed  by  Purgold  never  took  place. 
Sal.  Reinach,  Gaz.  Archiol.  1887,  p.  282,  note  9 ; Revue  Arch.  1888,  i.  sqq. 

5 ’A pitdBav  auraywriaa/xirwr  rois  HAeiois,  Diod.  16,63.  Cf.  Curtius,  Gnecliische  Geschichte,  iii.  (6th  edit. ) 
p.  623. 

6 Several  larger  buildings  in  Olympia  belong  to  the  same  period,  e.g.  the  Leonidaion,  the  great  rebuilding  of 
the  east  porch,  the  so-called  Echo  portico,  which  is  approximately  dated  by  its  similarity  with  the  Philippeion 
(cf.  Olympia,  Textbd.  ii.  72,  92). 

7 This  statue  was  certainly  made  on  the  spot,  for  it  is  executed  with  regard  to  the  position  it  was  to  occupy 
in  the  Heraion. 

8 Weil,  in  Sallet’s  Nitmisni.  Ztschr.  xiii.  384  ; Postolakkas,  Catalogue  1883 — 84,  Taf.  2,  9 ; Imhoof-Blumer 
and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  p.  74.  The  left  forearm  was  supported,  the  figure  rested  on  the  right  leg  ; the 
right  arm  was  raised  high  ; the  Dionysos  resembles  the  Hermes  in  every  particular,  except  that  he  is  looking  up 
towards  the  rhyton.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  legs  were  crossed.  The  Berlin  and  Athens  copies  are  too  much 
defaced  to  afford  exact  evidence  on  this  point.  If  the  legs  were  crossed,  it  would  be  another  reason  for  placing 
the  statue  in  the  later  period  of  Praxiteles  (cf.  Samml.  Sabouroff,  Text  to  PI.  77>  78)- 


DATE  OF  THE  HERMES 


309 


The  period  ( circa  B.C.  340)  to  which  we  accordingly  assign  the  Hermes  belongs 
however  to  the  master’s  later  period  : he  was  already  an  artist  of  repute  some  thirty 
years  earlier.  Ilis  two  great  groups  at  Mantineia  must  be  closely  connected  with  the 
rebuilding  of  the  city.  The  date  assigned  by  Pliny  to  Praxiteles  (01.  104)  probably 
refers  to  the  artist’s  activity  in  that  city  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  date  of  the  battle  of 
Mantineia  (B.C.  362). 1 Peyond  this  the  only  other  dates  we  possess  for  Praxiteles  are 
derived  from  the  fact  that  he  worked  on  the  Mausoleum  at  Halikarnassos  (begun 
B.C.  353)i  and  also  on  an  altar  at  Ephesos,  of  course  after  the  fire  of  B.C.  356.  There 
is  absolutely  nothing  to  prove  that  he  was  still  working  in  the  time  of  Alexander. 
The  date  assigned  by  Pliny  to  his  sons  (Ol.  121)  is  obviously  incorrect,  and  too  late. 
1 he  date  is  that  of  the  sons  of  Lysippos,  who  come  first  in  the  list,  and  Pliny, 
according  to  his  custom,2  included  within  the  period  other  artists  who  did  not  strictly 
belong  to  it.  The  sons  of  Praxiteles  are  connected  with  Lykurgos  and  his  family  ; 
the  statue  of  Menander,  who  died  in  291,  may  very  well  have  been  erected  in  his  life- 
time ;3  and  the  palaeographic  character  of  the  inscriptions  4 shows  that  the  sculptors 
lived  well  within  the  fourth  century.  Pliny’s  date  therefore  could  only  apply  to  the 
end  of  their  career,  and  involves  no  contradiction  of  our  assumption  that  the  father’s 
activity  extended  from  circa  B.C.  370 — 330. 

The  following  observations  further  confirm  our  dating  of  the  Hermes  : the  hair 
of  the  god  is  fashioned  with  a free  use  of  the  drill— one  main  effect  of  the  head  being 
due  to  its  employment — the  hair  left  rough  upon  it  with  the  tool-marks  has  a look 
of  rich  profusion,  and  rises  very  effectively  above  the  smoothly  polished  flesh  of  the 
face.  This  technical  refinement  is  yet  foreign  to  the  Skopasian  heads  from  the 
pediments  of  Tegea,  and  to  the  head,  probably  also  Skopasian,  found  on  the  south 
slope  of  the  Akropolis  ;5  nor  do  we  find  it  in  the  great  number  of  grave-reliefs  of 
the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century  ; a few  only,  which  from  their  style  belong  to 
the  last  reliefs  before  the  reorganisation  by  Demetrios  the  Phalerean,  show  this 
use  of  the  drill  in  the  hair. 

Lastly,  the  drapery  of  the  Hermes  is  treated  with  a degree  of  subtlety  abso- 
lutely without  parallel  among  the  works  of  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century.  The 
drapery  of  the  Muses  on  the  Mantineian  reliefs,  which  belong  to  the  artist’s  earlier 
period,  appears,  in  spite  of  the  wealth  of  folds,  quite  simple  by  comparison.  The 
system  of  enlivening  the  smooth  surfaces  between  the  large  folds  by  breaking  them 
up  by  small  curving  or  broken  lines  is  in  the  Hermes  carried  out  to  the  greatest  and 
most  lifelike  perfection.  Only  among  the  later  grave-reliefs  of  the  fourth  century  is 

1 Cf.  p.  295,  note  1.  As  Praxiteles’s  name  is  the  first  under  the  date,  this  passage  must  have  reference  to  him 
(cf.  Plinius  und  seine  Quellen,  in  Fleckeis.  Suppl.  Bd.  ix.  p.  21  seq.),  and  is  not  to  be  lightly  set  aside. 

2 Cf.  p.  41.  Plinius  und  seine  Quellen,  p.  22  seq.  Only  a complete  ignorance  of  the  character  of  Pliny's 
dating  can  have  caused  Overbeck  (Siichs.  Ber.  1893,45  seq.)  to  assume  that  01.  121  was  the  ‘Bliithezeit’  of 
Kephisodotos  II.,  when  he  was  forty  years  old,  and  to  found  on  this  the  date  of  Praxiteles.  Pausanias’s  vague 
statement  that  Praxiteles  was  three  generations  later  than  Alkamenes  gives  no  help,  for  it  leaves  a margin  of 
years  greater  than  the  number  about  which  the  controversy  exists. 

b The  statue  in  the  Vatican  (Helbig,  Museums,  201),  called  Menander  since  Visconti’s  time,  and  supposed  to  be 
an  original  work,  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  name  was  based  on  one  medallion  in  relief  which  had 
already  disappeared  in  Visconti’s  time  ; moreover,  the  drawing  of  it  (Icon.  Grecque,  PI.  6)  is  very  unlike  the  head 
of  the  statue.  The  dress  is  against  the  identification  as  Menander  ; the  chiton  with  short  sleeves  had  not  come 
into  fashion  in  the  fourth  century  ; it  points  to  a personage  of  later  date — a contemporary  of  the  Poseidippos  and 
of  the  fine-seated  statue  in  the  Capitol  (Helbig,  Museums,  499).  The  head  of  the  double  term  at  Bonn  (Friederichs- 
Wolters,  1 3 1 1 ) is  again  quite  different  from  the  Vatican  head.  It  may  be  remarked  incidentally  that  the  other 
term  at  Bonn  (F.-W.  1310),  the  so-called  ‘ Sophokles,’  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  portrait  of  this  poet. 
The  head  united  with  the  Euripides  probably  represents  Aischylos. 

4 Cf.  Ldwy,  I.  G.  B.  ti2  and  hi  ; Kohler’s  remarks,  ibid.  109,  and  C.  I.  A.  ii.  1377. 

0 Cf.  B.  Graf,  in  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  p.  216. 


PRAXITELES 


3 10 

this  treatment  found  now  and  again.  The  next  stage  to  the  style  of  the  drapery  of 
the  Hermes  is  found  in  the  Nike  of  Samothrace. 

Against  these  facts  and  considerations,  which  all  show  the  Hermes  to  belong 
to  the  artist’s  later  period,  the  arguments  advanced  by  Bru-nn 1 to  prove  that  it 
belongs  to  his  youth  can  scarcely  hold.  For  instance,  we  cannot  admit  that  ‘in 
the  Hermes  the  artist  has  not  yet  attained  absolutely  to  that  perfect  security  of 
execution  which  can  only  be  the  result  of  long  practice.’  There  is  not  in  all 
antiquity  a work  showing  more  subtle  finish  or  more  intimate  mastery  of  all  the 


Fig.  131. — Satyr  in  Dresden. 

secrets  of  marble  technique  than  the  Hermes.  Brunii  would  scarcely  have  passed  the 
verdict  he  did  had  he  seen  the  original  at  Olympia. 

The  main  point  is,  however,  that  we  still  possess  a series  of  copies  after  Praxiteles 
of  a style  so  different  and  so  much  older  than  the  Hermes  that  we  are  compelled  to 
assign  them  to  his  earlier  period. 

Above  all  there  is  the  Satyr  pouring  wine  (Figs.  131  and  132)2  extant  in  so  many 

1 Deutsche  Rundschau , viii.  188  sqq , 

“ List  of  replicas  (Schreiber,  Villa  Ludovisi , p,  93) : the  Ludovisi  copy,  a torso  of  the  Capitol,  a torso  and  a 
head  in  the  Vatican  are  published  by  Gh.  Ghirardini  in  Bull,  della  Comm . Arch,  di  Roma,  1892,  Taf.  11 — 14  ; 
the  Ludovisi  copy  also  in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  376.  From  Schreiber’s  list  should  be  omitted  g,  Mus. 
Torlonia  35  ; there  should  be  added  to  it  a head  in  Mus.  Chiaramonti,  367  (made  into  a terminal  bust,  neck  very 


SATYR  POURING  WINE 


31  l 

copies.  It  is  true  that  it  cannot  be  identified  with  absolute  certainty  with  any  one  of 
the  Praxitelean  Satyrs  recorded  by  tradition.  The  much-vexed  passage  in  Pausanias,1 
where  he  speaks  of  the  works  of  art  in  the  street  of  the  Tripods  and  of  the  cunning 
by  which  Phryne  contrived  to  make  Praxiteles  confess  that  he  esteemed  the  Satyr 
and  the  Eros  his  finest  works,  is  so  obscure,  either  owing  to  the  author’s  perverse 
manner  of  writing  or  to  the  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  text,  that  we  arc  not 
certain  whether  the  boyish  Satyr  mentioned  as  acting  as  cupbearer  was  by  Praxiteles 
or  not.  Either  interpretation  of  the  passage  causes  difficulties,  which  can,  it  is  true, 
be  easily  solved  byemending  the  text  or  by  assuming  the  existence  of  a lacuna,  but  we 
can  never  hope  to  come  to  any  incontrovertible  conclusion.  Our  reason  for  believing 
that  this  particular  Satyr  goes  back  to  Praxiteles  does  not,  however,  rest  on  the  passage 
in  Pausanias,  but  on  other  circumstances.  An  original  of  which  so  many  copies  exist 


Fig.  132.  — Head  of  Satyr  in  Dresden. 


must  have  been  one  of  the  most  famous  statues  in  antiquity.  Now  Praxiteles  was 
famous  for  his  Satyrs,  and,  even  without  entering  into  detailed  analysis,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  work  has  a thoroughly  Praxitelean  grace  and  charm.  The  original  must  have  been 
of  bronze  ; the  Satyr  of  Praxiteles,  which  Pliny  mentions  as  the  periboetos , or  ‘ far- 
famed,’  was  bronze  ; this  statue,  and,  as  it  seems,  the  one  in  the  street  of  the  Tripods 
also,  was  grouped  with  a Dionysos  and  a third  figure.2  Such  a combination  would 
suit  the  ‘Cup-bearer’  very  well,  for  it  insures  the  presence  of  another  figure  for  whom 

thick,  a ribbon  hanging  down  each  side,  called  ‘ Herakles’),  and  a head  in  the  Gall,  dei  Candelabri,  45.  Both  are 
inferior  copies. 

1 For  the  most  recent  discussions  see  Wolters , Arch.  Zeitg.  1885,  82;  Reisch,  Weihgeschenke , p.  111  ; 
Gherardo  Ghirardini,  Bull,  della  Comm.  Archeol.  di  Roma,  1892. 

2 Pliny,  xxxiv.  69  : Liberum  patrem , Ebrietatem  nobilemque  una  Satyrum , quern  Graeci  periboeton  cognomi- 
nant.  Pans.  i.  20,  2 : Sirupis  hr n wais  /cal  SlSuxrir  (Kira/ta.  ‘'Kpuira  S’  Iutt jKora  6/iiov  /cal  Ai bvvaov  &v,u.'iAos 
liroirtirev.  In  the  group  mentioned  by  Pliny,  perhaps  Praxiteles  repeated  the  same  Satyr  which  he  had  placed  in 
the  group  which  he  made  together  with  Thymilos.  It  appears  to  me  quite  certain  that  the  figures  named  by  Pau- 
sanias formed  a group.  The  Dionysos  with  Eros,  by  Thymilos,  may  survive  in  the  Naples  group  (Gerhard, 
Neapels  ant.  Bildw.  p.  30,  No.  96),  where  Dionysos  leans  on  Eros  (the  antique  basis  shows  that  the  figures 
belong  together).  The  Eros  had  right  supporting  leg,  and  the  Satyr  on  the  other  side  of  Dionysos  had  left 
supporting  leg.  In  the  group  mentioned  by  Pliny  the  young  Satyr  must  have  occupied  the  centre  between 
Dionysos  and  Methe  (Ebriefas). 


312 


PRAXITELES 


the  cup  is  to  be  filled.1  Certainly  the  Satyr  is  not  filling  it  for  himself ; no  Satyr 
would  use  so  much  ceremony  on  his  own  behalf.  He  is  here  fashioned  after 
the  pattern  of  the  mortal  youths  in  attendance  at  feasts.  Thus  also  the  youthful 
cup-bearer  on  the  so-called  funeral  banquet  reliefs  of  the  fourth  century  appears 
frequently  in  the  motive  of  our  statue.2 

We  may  therefore  assume,  with  that  degree  of  certainty  that  can  be  attained  in 
matters  of  this  kind,  that  this  Satyr  is  a creation  by  Praxiteles.  Yet  how  different  is 
this  work  to  the  Hermes  ! 

The  Satyr  is  still  constructed  on  the  traditions  of  the  fifth  century,  and,  with 
regard  to  form  at  any  rate,  betrays  a strong  Peloponnesian  influence.  In  fullest 
contrast  to  the  Hermes,  the  body  viewed  from  the  front  presents  as  far  as  possible 
quiet,  vertical,  unbroken  planes.  This  in  itself  is  a mark  of  the  same  tendency  so 
strongly  imprinted  on  Polykleitan  figures.  The  abdomen  and  the  chest  are  still  flat, 
the  nipples  far  apart,  the  front  of  the  body  seems  to  pass  into  the  sides  almost  at  a 
right  angle,  as  in  the  fifth  century,  while  in  the  Hermes  a wealth  of  soft  undulations 
insensibly  carry  the  eye  on,  so  that  there  is  no  sharp  separation  between  sides  and 
front.  Then  the  depression  between  the  straight  and  the  oblique  abdominal  muscles 
is  emphasized  as  in  Polykleitos.  The  boyish  figures  by  that  artist,  particularly  the 
‘boy  crowning  himself’  and  statues  akin  to  it  like  the  Pan  and  the  ‘ Narkissos,’  are 
the  immediate  predecessors  of  this  Satyr.  The  legs  are  in  that  attitude  of  ‘arrested 
motion  ’ which  Polykleitos  gave  to  his  chief  works.  The  head  is  turned  and  inclined 
to  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg — the  left  ; the  left  forearm  is  stretched  out  hori- 
zontally, just  as  in  that  old  Peloponnesian  type  whose  influence  we  have  traced  down 
throughout  the  whole  fifth  century.  Moreover,  the  figure  has  the  self-contained 
bearing  of  the  series  of  Argive  statues  extending  from  Hagelaidas  to  Polykleitos. 
The  Satyr  has  been  compared  to  the  ‘oil-pourer’  at  Munich, 3 and  has  even  been 
taken  as  derived  from  it.  The  comparison  is  instructive,  if  only  because  it  emphasizes 
the  difference  between  the  two  figures.4  The  ‘ oil-pourer  ’ shows  lines  recklessly 
broken  up,  an  oblique  position  of  the  body,  and  a sturdy  attitude  with  legs  well 
apart ; everything  is  so  arranged  as  to  give  a true  rendering  of  the  intention  and 
the  action,  while  in  the  Satyr  the  action  is  a matter  of  indifference.  The  sole 
object  of  the  artist  is  to  produce  a restful,  pleasing  design.  In  this  too  he 
followed  Polykleitos,  who  always  paid  most  attention  to  that  point. 

To  turn  now  to  the  head.  The  structure  of  the  skull  differs  totally  from  that  of 
the  Hermes,  and  closely  recalls  the  Polykleitan  manner.  In  place  of  the  round  Attic 
skull  of  the  Munich  ‘oil-pourer’  and  of  the  Hermes,  we  find  a .close  approach  to  the 
square  Argive  type.  The  skull  is  also  considerably  deeper  and  higher  behind  the 
ears  than  in  the  Hermes.  The  difference  in  the  hair  does  not  arise  merely  from 
the  difference  of  material  ; it  is  a real  difference  of  treatment.  The  hair  still  lies 
close  to  the  head,  so  as  to  show  the  shape.  The  form  of  the  separate  locks 
(especially  of  the  intertwining  ends  in  front  of  and  behind  the  ear),  the  symmetrical 
parting  in  front,  and  the  small  pointed  locks  hanging  over  the  forehead,  are  all 
evidence  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  later  Polykleitan  works. 

1 From  the  Berlin  copy  (Skit Ip/.  257)  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  vessel  in  the  original  was  a drinking-horn, 
but  the  kylix  of  the  Palermo  copy  is  more  probably  correct.  In  the  Ludovisi  statue  there  is  preserved  the  end, 
not  of  a twisted  horn,  but  of  a twisted  support  which  connected  forearm  and  leg  ; these  sort  of  supports  are 
common  in  the  age  of  Hadrian  and  the  Antonines.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  original  the  left  hand  more  probably 
held  a cup  ; pouring  from  a height  seems  to  me  more  natural  when  the  liquid  falls  on  a broad  surface,  rather 
than  into  a narrow  vessel. 

2 e.g.  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  Nos.  1058,  1059,  1063,  1066. 

3 Ghirardini,  loc.  cit.  4 Thus  rightly  Michaelis,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1883,  140,  note  1. 


EROS  FROM  THE  PALATINE 


313 


Beyond  these  formal  elements,  however,  the  Argive  influence  does  not  extend. 
The  spirit  and  expression  of  the  head,  nay,  even  the  formation  of  the  forehead,  which 
though  sparer  in  treatment  yet  shows  the  same  shape  as  the  Hermes,  the  round, 
soft,  tender  grace  and  kindly  cheerful- 
ness of  the  small  mouth  and  cheeks,  are 
thoroughly  Attic,  and  entirely  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Hermes.  Marked  as  is  the 
resemblance  of  the  body  to  the  Pelopon- 
nesian prototypes,  the  deviations  from 
it  are  no  less  noticeable.  The  navel  is 
sunk  deeper,  and  below  it  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  linea  alba ; the  division 
between  the  abdomen  and  thighs  is  no 
longer  marked  with  the  old  conventional 
hardness  ; the  gluteus  of  the  free  leg  has 
no  depression  ; the  flesh  is  softer  and 
fuller,  and  the  best  copies  show  that  in 
the  original  the  delicate  play  of  the 
muscles  under  the  firm  flesh  must  have 
been  a special  charm  of  the  statue. 

Hence  it  is  clear  that  the  Satyr  is 
of  an  earlier  date  than  the  Hermes,  and 
it  is  as  a youthful  work  of  Praxiteles 
that  we  must  consider  it.  We  learn  from 
it  that  the  work  of  the  Polykleitan 
school  exercised  a lasting  influence  on 
the  young  artist — an  influence  we  can 
well  understand  with  a youth  so  alive 
to  beauty  and  grace  of  form.  He  had 
opportunities  enough  of  studying  the 
work  of  Peloponnesian  artists  at  Athens 
(we  still  have  an  inscription  from  a work 
by  Naukydes  on  the  Akropolis),  and  he 
soo.n  went  himself  to  the  Peloponnesos, 
where  he  worked  for  Mantineia.1  The 
date  of  the  Satyr  lies  between  370  and 
360  B.C. 

To  the  same  period  belongs  a 
second  work  by  the  same  artist  like  at 
all  points  to  the  preceding.  It  is  an 
Eros,  of  which  we  have  a good  copy 
in  a torso  from  the  Palatine,  which  has  been  restored  and  is  now  in  the  Louvre 
(Fig.  133).2  That  an  Eros  should  be  the  nearest  counterpart  to  the  Satyr  is  a 

1 The  group  of  Apollo,  Leto,  and  Artemis  in  Megara  must  have  been  one  of  the  artist’s  early  works. 
Imitations  of  it  on  coins  (Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  A,  x. ; FF,  i.  ii. ) seems  to  point  to  a 
group  of  severe  character  in  the  style  of  the  fifth  century.  The  work  might  be  by  the  elder  Praxiteles. 

2 Frohner,  Notice,  p.  31 1,  No.  325  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  378-  Fig.  133  leaves  out  the  restored 
head  and  left  arm.  Left  forearm,  right  leg,  left  knee,  and  right  fool  are  restored.  The  beautiful  large 
left  wing  is  antique.  A cast  of  the  torso,  unrestored,  was  formerly  in  the  small  museum  of  the  Palatine,  and 
was  there  drawn  by  Eichler,  1876 — 77>  for  the  Institute.  Steinhiiuser’s  restorations  are  hideous.  The  antique 


Fig.  133. — Eros  from  the  Palatine  (Louvre). 


PRAXITELES 


3H 


confirmation  of  the  Praxitelean  origin  of  both,  for  Praxiteles  is  the  very  artist  who 
was  as  famous  for  his  Erotes  as  for  his  Satyrs.  This  Eros  torso  is  extraordinarily 
like  the  Satyr  both  in  the  attitude  of  the  body  and  in  the  system  of  forms.  The 
only  difference  is  that  the  head  is  turned,  not  to  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg, 

but  somewhat  to  the  right,  thus  sacrific- 
ing the  tranquil  absorption  of  the  figure. 
What  the  hands  held  is  uncertain  ; pos- 
sibly a wreath  or  a fillet,  as  attributes 
of  the  god  ; 1 at  any  rate  the  right  arm 
was  held  very  high  ; the  tree-trunk  with 
the  quiver  and  bow  is  merely  an  addi- 
tion by  the  copyist.  The  formation  of 
the  body,  though  still  on  the  same  basis 
as  in  the  Satyr,  goes  further  in  the 
direction  of  softness  and  roundness. 
The  abdomen  is  less  flat,  the  soft  layer 
of  flesh  over  the  muscles  is  more  clearly 
indicated  ; the  depression  above  the 
navel  is  deeper  ; what  remains  of  the 
hair  shows  a fuller,  freer  treatment,  from 
which  we  may  infer  that  the  Eros  is  a 
later  work  of  the  youth  of  Praxiteles. 

In  close  connexion  with  both  the 
preceding  creations  are  two  others  of 
less  importance,  which  are  possibly  only 
the  work  of  a contemporary  imitator. 
These  two  statues,  both  under  life-size, 
represent  respectively  Apollo2  and 
Dionysos,3  and  correspond  in  attitude 
and  bodily  forms  to  the  Satyr,  except 
that  the  right  hand  rests  quietly  on  the 
head.  In  the  Apollo  the  head  has  been 
preserved  ; it  agrees  in  pose  and  in- 
clination with  the  Satyr,  and,  like  it, 
bears  witness  to  Polykleitan  influence, 
in  having  the  parted  hair  growing  closely  to  the  skull  and  hanging  down  over  the 
forehead  in  symmetrical  curls. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a second  Eros,  which  must  have  been  another  creation 

parts  are  also  somewhat  worked  over  in  parts.  For  sketch  of  the  antique  parts  and  description,  see  Roscher’s 
Lex  ikon,  i.  1360,  1361,  Z.  18  seq.  Milani  (M/ts.  Ital.  iii.  p.  767)  and  R.  Forster  (Eros,  Rede,  1893,  p.  10) 
agreed  with  me  in  referring  it  to  Praxiteles.  Weil,  in  Baumeister’s  Denkm.  p.  1401,  with  fig.  1551.  There 
is  a replica  in  the  museum  at  Parma  (Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverk.  No.  74)- 

1 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  loc.  cit.  Milani  (loc.  cit.)  thought  he  had  found  an  imitation  of  the  statue  on  an 
Athenian  coin  : Beule,  Monn.  d’Atk.  p.  222  (=  Brit.  Mus.  Catal  Attica,  PI.  12,  3 ; p.  39).  But  the  motive  is  not 
the  same.  The  figure  on  the  coin  represents  a palaestric  Eros  (cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1344,  Z.  7)>  or  another 
palaestric  Daemon,  possibly  Agon,  according  to  Weil’s  hypothesis  [Arch.  Ztg.  Bd.  xxxiii.  164).  The  Eros  of 
Kallislratos,  with  which  Milani  identifies  it,  must  have  been  quite  different,  and  is,  I think,  reproduced  in  a small 
bronze  (cf.  Jahrb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Alterthums-Fr.  im  Rheinland , Fleft  90,  p.  63,  Taf.  3i  3)- 

2 In  the  Louvre.  Frohner,  Notice,  No.  74;  Clarac,  PI.  269,  912;  photo,  edit.  Giraudon,  No.  1202.  Poor. 
The  stem  with  the  tripod  is  only  a technical  support  ; the  left  forearm  does  not  really  lean  on  it.  This  work  is 
quite  distinct  from  the  later  Praxitelean  ‘ Resting  Apollo.’ 

3 In  Tarragona,  Hiibner,  Bildw.  in  Madrid,  No.  672  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1488. 


EROS  OF  CENTOCELLE 


3 1 5 


of  the  sculptor  s youth,  and  which,  to  judge  from  the  number  of  extant  copies,  must  have 
been  far  more  celebrated.  I know  of  seven  copies  of  this  Eros,  of  presumably  the 
same  size  as  the  original  (about  life-size),  and  four  statuettes.  The  best-known 
replica  is  the  torso  from  Centocelle  (head  in  Fig.  1 3 5 ) 1 in  the  Vatican;  the  statue  at 
Naples  (h  ig.  1 34) 2 is  better  preserved,  and  the  work,  though  hasty,  is  fresh,  and  probably 
dates  from  the  first  century  B.C.  1 he  main  effect  is  faithfully  reproduced,  but  little 
attention  is  paid  to  such  details  as  the  hair.  On  the  support  near  the  left  leg  are 
seen  the  remains  of  a bow,  once  held  in  the  left  hand.  This  accessory  is  more 
correctly  reproduced  in  a third  copy  at  Turin.3  In  it  one  end  of  the  big  bow  rests  on 
the  ground,  and  the  left  hand  holds  the  upper  end  of  the  weapon.  A tree-trunk 


Fig.  135. — Head  of  Eros  of  Centocelle  (Vatican). 


which  serves  as  support  has  a quiver  hanging  from  it  ; but  it  is  evident  that  it  was 
only  added  by  a copyist,  for  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  design,  and  is  differently 
treated  by  the  several  copyists.  In  the  original  the  bow  stood  clear  of  the  statue. 
A piece  of  the  bow  is  also  preserved  in  a replica  in  Russia.4 

1 Helbig,  Museums , 185  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1578.  Holes  for  wings  on  the  back. 

2 Clarac,  649,  1487  ; Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  1359.  Right  arm,  left  forearm,  and  left  leg  restored  ; wings 
mostly  antique.  The  front  of  the  body  is  somewhat  worked  over.  The  head  is  much  more  lifelike  than  the 
one  in  the  Vatican. 

3 Diitschke,  Oberital.  iv.  No.  49.  The  statue  is  well  preserved  ; the  head  (except  the  ends  of  the  curls  on 
the  neck)  is  restored  ; the  basis  is  antique,  so  are  both  legs,  though  broken.  The  right  foot  is  drawn  back,  and 
the  heel  raised.  The  left  arm  and  hand  are  antique,  though  broken  ; the  hand  rests  on  the  end  of  the  bow.  The 
bow  is  carved  in  relief  in  a vertical  position  on  the  front  of  the  trunk,  the  upper  part  of  which  is  restored.  The 
right  upper  arm  is  antique,  and  separated  from  the  body. 

4 Stephani,  Die  Antikensamml.  zu  Pazv/owsk  {Mdm  de  V Acad,  de  St.  Petersb.  xviii.  4),  p.  8,  No.  6.  From 
Stephani’s  description  I gather  that  it  is  a genuine  replica.  The  bow  is  introduced  as  it  is  in  the  Turin 
statue  ; it  is  important  to  note  that,  according  to  Stephani,  the  right  arm  and  the  open  empty  hand  are  antique  : 
also  the  large  wings  seem  to  be  antique.  T have  already  [Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  153)  refuted  Stephani’s  assertion 
that  the  figure  formed  a group  with  Psyche.  Overbeck  shares  Stephani’s  opinion  (P/as/ik,  3rd  ed.  ii.  34). 


31 6 


PRAXITELES 


The  fifth  replica,  recently  found  in  Rome,  is  only  a torso  (Terme  Museum)  j1  the 
sixth  has  neither  head  nor  arms;2  the  seventh  (Palazzo  Conserv.) 3 is  distinguished 
from  all  the  others  through  the  absence  of  wings,  and  moreover  it  is  by  far  the  worst 
and  obviously  quite  the  latest  of  the  copies.  In  the  right  hand  may  be  seen  the 
remains  of  some  attribute,  apparently  a small  torch,  which,  on  the  analogy  of  a small 
replica,  was  held  reversed  upon  an  altar.  The  statuette,4  however,  is  of  very  late 
and  poor  workmanship,  and  is  also  wingless.5  The  question  now  arises  whether  the 
torch  reversed  upon  the  altar — an  emblem  of  funereal  import6 — together  with  the 
winglessness  which  marks  the  figure  as  a kind  of  genius  of  death,7  are,  on  the  ground 
of  those  two  poor  and  late  replicas,  to  be  ascribed  to  the  original  statue.  The  answer 
must  be  in  the  negative.  We  merely  have  here  one  of  those  transformations,  effected 
by  some  trifling  external  additions,  such  as  Greek  originals  not  unfrequently  under- 
went at  the  hands  of  later  Roman  artists  ; besides,  in  one,  or  perhaps  even  in  two 
copies,8  the  right  hand  still  exists,  and  has  no  such  attribute.  Further,  a decorative 
stucco  at  Pompeii,9  which  truthfully  reproduces  the  main  points  of  the  statue,  shows 
the  left  hand  supporting  the  large  bow  placed  on  the  ground,  and  the  right  hand 
hanging  down  empty.  Of  course  there  is  no  support  for  the  left  leg,  any  more  than 
there  can  have  been  in  the  original  ; the  wings,  as  in  the  Palatine  Eros,  are  very  large. 
All  the  evidence  tends  to  prove  that  the  right  hand  was  empty,  yet  in  the  original  it 
may  not  impossibly  have  held  an  arrow,  which  might  easily  be  omitted  by  the  copyist. 

The  original  must  go  back  to  Praxiteles.  I once  thought  that  we  only  had  late 
adaptations  of  it,10  because  I wrongly  believed  that  all  the  copies  should  be  restored 
with  the  inverted  torch  on  the  altar,  and  because  I followed  the  commonly  received 
opinion  that  the  plait  of  hair  worn  by  the  Eros  belonged  to  the  Roman  period.  This 
was  a mistake,  for  practically  the  same  fashion  of  hair  occurs  in  a boy’s  head  of  the 
fifth  century — probably  also  an  Eros.11  My  next  view  was  that  the  original  of  the 
statue  should  be  sought  for  in  the  Peloponnesian  school  of  the  fourth  century,12 
because  of  the  intimate  connexion  between  this  statue  and  the  later  Polykleitan 
works.  But  I have  since  found  all  these  characteristics  in  the  early  work  of 
Praxiteles,  and  various  considerations  will  eventually  show  that  he  was  the  artist. 
Thus  the  old  conjecture  of  E.  0.  Visconti  seems  likely  to  prove  true. 

1 The  torso  has  suffered  by  water  ; the  ends  of  the  curls  are  preserved  ; large  holes  in  the  back  for  the 
wings. 

2 Rome,  Coll.  Monteverde  (Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverk.  No.  141). 

3 Discussed  by  me  in  Bull,  dell’  Inst.  1877,  1 5 1 seq.  Published  in  Bull,  delle  Comm.  Arch,  di  Roma,  1877, 
Tav.  16;  17,  1.  Cf.  Helbig,  Museums,  569.  The  head  is  wrongly  put  on. 

4 Vatican,  Gall,  dei  Candel.  203  ; Gerhard,  Ant.  Bildw.  Taf.  93,  2 ; Helbig,  Museums,  393.  For  the 
restorations,  cf.  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  152,  No.  2. 

5 The  three  other  statuettes  are  : Berlin,  139.  Torso  with  wings. — Copenhagen,  Jacobsen  collection,  1051, 

headless,  bronze  wings  fastened  on  by  two  cramps.  Quiver  hangs  on  the  trunk,  on  the  top  of  which  are 
traces  of  the  attachment  of  the  bow  as  on  the  Naples  replica.  Remains  of  a spiral  puntello  on  the  right  thigh 
to  join  it  to  the  wrist. — Turin.  Head  only.  Fair  work.  G Cf.  Bull.  d.  Inst.  18771  1 54  sel- 

7 Helbig  {Bull.  d.  Inst.  1885,  71)  and  Fiihrer  (No.  183)  called  it  Thanatos.  [His  view  is  now  modified; 
cf.  Museums,  185. — E.  S.] 

8 On  the  copy  of  Pawlowsk  (p.  315,  note  4),  and  perhaps  on  the  one  at  Turin  (p.  315,  note  3). 

9 Mus.  Borbonico,  ii.  53  ; Brulloff,  Thermes  de  Pompeii,  PI.  4.  In  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  160,  I pointed  out 
the  differences  between  these  two  publications.  Brulloff  gives  the  right  hand  empty,  in  AIus.  Borb.  it  holds  an 
arrow.  The  original  is  in  Pompeii,  on  the  wall  of  the  Tepidarium  of  the  Thermae  of  Fortuna.  It  is  clear  that 
the  hand  was  empty,  although  only  the  thumb  and  forefinger  remain.  The  stucco  relief  corresponds  with  the 
statue  in  attitude,  turn  of  head,  etc.,  but  the  head  is  not  bent,  and  the  plaits  of  hair  are  not  exactly  reproduced. 

10  Bull,  dell'  Inst.  1877,  160  ; where  stress  is  yet  laid  on  the  fact  that  an  original  of  the  best  period  is  its 
origin.  Stephani  (loc.  cit.)  also  assigns  the  motive  to  the  Roman  epoch.  Wolters  does  this  still  more  definitely  in 
Gipsab.  p.  634. 

11  Archiiol.  Studien  H.  Brunn  dargebr.  1893,  p.  88  seq.  Taf.  3. 


12  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1362. 


THESPIAN  EROS 


317 


It  is  the  obviously  great  reputation  of  the  work  which  tells  most  in  favour  of 
Praxiteles,  the  most  celebrated  pourtrayist  of  Eros.  In  the  second  place,  the  bodily 
forms  present  great  similarity  to  the  Satyr  and  the  Palatine  Eros,  though  the  age 
represented  is  certainly  somewhat  more  advanced,  since  the  muscles  are  more  power- 
fully developed. 

The  motive,  like  that  of  the  Satyr,  is  connected  with  the  series  of  Argive  types. 
The  attitude  of  the  body  and  the  turn  and  bend  of  the  head  agree  with  the  Polykleitan 
‘ boy  crowning  himself’  and  the  Ildcfonso  figure  ; the  motion  of  the  arms,  however,  is 
different,  and  the  upper  part  of  the  body  is  slightly  twisted,  the  right  shoulder  being 
slightly  thrust  forward.'  Even  this  attitude,  though  reversed,  is  found  in  the  Poly- 
kleitan ‘Dresden  boy’  (Plate  XII.),  who  is  almost  identical  with  our  Eros;  even  the 
arms  correspond — one  hanging  down  beside  the  body,  the  other  being  outstretched  ; 
and  if  the  Eros  held,  as  we  conjectured,  an  arrow  in  his  right  hand,  the  analogy 
with  the  Polykleitan  boy,  who  also  held  something  in  the  hand  towards  which  the  head 
is  turned,  becomes  so  much  the  closer. 

It  is  evident  that  the  youthful  Praxiteles  had  fallen  under  the  charm  of  those  Poly- 
kleitan figures,  and  his  Eros  shows  an  admirable  adaptation  of  their  chief  characteristics. 
For  Praxiteles,  as  for  Polyklcitos,  the  rhythmic  grace  of  the  whole  motive  depends 
very  largely  on  the  bend  of  the  head.  But  this  bend  of  the  head  has  also  been  used 
by  both  sculptors  for  the  purposes  of  characterization : in  one  case  it  serves  to 
emphasize  the  modesty  of  the  boy  victor  ; in  the  other,  a slight  change  of  attitude 
has  sufficed  to  produce  a very  different  effect : it  is  the  demoniac  nature  of  Eros 
which  is  expressed  in  that  bent  head,  in  that  face  peering  up  from  amid  its  profusion 
of  locks.1 

This  is  no  longer  the  joyous,  innocent  Eros  with  wreath  and  fillet,  as  we  can 
imagine  him  to  have  been  represented  in  the  Palatine  torso  : he  has  become  the 
bewitching  daemon,  the  captivating,  irresistible  god,  inravTcov  hai/aovcov  vrrepTaTos, 
glorified  in  the  poetry  of  Euripides,2  who  gave  him  as  symbols  of  his  all-powerful 
sway  the  bow  and  arrow 3 which  he  carries  here.  We  can  now  understand  why 
Praxiteles  gave  to  this  Eros  more  developed  forms  than  to  the  other. 

The  god  holds  his  bow  (and  arrow  ?)  ready  for  immediate  use,  yet  the  artist 
only  intends  them  as  an  outward  symbol,  for  he  has  essayed  the  difficult  task  of 
giving  visible  expression  to  the  inward  might  of  the  god  : he  does  not  allow  him  to 
use  his  weapons,  his  Eros  is  irresistible  through  his  upward  glance  and  bewitching 
charm.  . . . We  have  thus  unconsciously  arrived  at  a presentment  of  the  god  which 
agrees  strictly  with  a well-known  ancient  epigram  on  the  Thespian  Eros  of  Praxiteles, 
to  the  effect  that  he  excited  the  transports  of  love  by  hurling  not  darts  but  glances, 
0/A.rpa  he  /3d\\co  ovk  eV  olarevuiv,  aXK’  arei'tfo'yaei'o?.4  Further,  since  this  statue  was, 
as  we  saw,  an  early  work  of  Praxiteles,  made  at  the  same  time  as  the  Satyr  ; and 

1 That  the  bent  head  means  grief  is  a modern  misunderstanding  of  Friederichs  ( Bausteine , 448).  His  earlier 
opinion  (expressed  in  his  exquisite  monograph  on  Praxiteles,  p.  22),  that  the  head  is  bent  in  a dreamy  mood,  and 
is  characteristic  of  Praxiteles,  is  more  correct. 

2 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1348.  3 Cf.  ibid.  1348,  and  Arch.  Anz.  1890,  p.  89. 

4 For  the  epigram,  cf.  Benndorf,  in  Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch,  di  Roma,  1886,  p.  69  seq.,  who  shows  that 
aTevi(6fj.eros  is  in  the  middle  voice.  His  proofs  seem  to  me  absolutely  convincing,  and  Robert’s  arguments  (Arch. 

Marcheu,  p.  167)  are  powerless  to  refute  them.  By  the  basis  in  the  theatre,  however,  on  which,  according  to 
Athenaeus,  the  epigram  was  inscribed,  I incline  to  understand,  not  as  Benndorf  does,  the  original  basis  in  Thespiai 
(for  Athenaeus  does  not  mention  this  city  at  all),  but  a basis  of  later  date  supporting  a replica  in  Athens.  Near 
the  theatre  was  found  a torso  of  an  Aphrodite  which  appears  to  be  an  admirable  replica  of  the  Aphrodite  in 
Thespiai  (cf.  supra,  p.  319,  n.  1)  I have  already  shown  (p.  271,  note)  that  Benndorf  is  wrong  in  referring  to  the 
Eros  of  Thespiai  a statue  of  Ares  in  the  Capitoline  Museum. 


3iS 


PRAXITELES 


since  in  the  story  of  Phryne’s  stratagem  the  Thespian  Eros  actually  figures  in 
company  with  a famous  Satyr  ; and,  finally,  since  a statue  preserved  in  so  many 
copies  must  have  been  one  of  the  sculptor’s  masterpieces — there  can  be  hardly  any 
doubt  that  we  arc  right  in  identifying  it  with  the  Thespian  statue. 

What  dates  we  have  of  Phryne’s  life  agree  very  well  with  the  conjecture  that  the 
Eros  which  she  dedicated  at  Thespiai  was  one  of  the  works  of  the  earlier  period  of 
Praxiteles,  between  370  and  360  B.C.  The  only  reliable  chronological  information  we 
have  about  her,  beyond  her  connexion  with  the  artist,  is  that  she  inspired  the  ‘ Anady- 
omene  ’ of  Apelles,  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  our  placing  this  about  350.1 
When  Phryne  offered  to  rebuild  Thebes  in  335  B.C.,  after  its  destruction  by  Alexander, 
she  may  very  well  have  been  advanced  in  years,  for  this  was  an  enterprise  for  which 
only  money  was  needed.  The  lawsuit,  in  which  she  was  defended  by  Hyperides, 
cannot  be  closely  dated.2  Writers  of  the  Middle  Comedy  speak  of  her  as  a 
contemporary,3  while  in  the  New  Comedy  she  is  alluded  to  as  a hetaira  of  the 
previous  generation.4  It  has  been  plausibly  suggested  that  it  was  not  till  after  the 
destruction  of  her  home,  Thespiai,  by  the  Thebans  that  she  came  to  Athens,  at  a time 
when  her  countrymen  were  turning  to  Athens  for  succour  (probably  B.C.  373 — 372).5 
At  any  rate,  in  order  to  be  known  as  a Thespian,  she  must  have  been  born  before 
that  date,  and  need  no  longer  have  been  a child6  at  the  time.  Pier  connexion  with 
Praxiteles,  which  anyhow  belongs  most  naturally  to  the  artist’s  youth,  would  take 
place  in  the  period  immediately  following.  The  temple  at  Thespiai  was  of  course 
spared  by  the  Thebans,7  and  Phryne,  in  recognition  of  her  successes  in  Athens,  sent  a 
handsome  votive  offering  to  the  god  of  her  native  town,  though  its  walls  were  razed 
and  the  town  itself  had  passed  into  the  power  of  Thebes.8  The  Thebans,  however, 
would  certainly  not  interfere  with  private  piety  or  dedications  in  the  temple,  their 
only  object  being  to  destroy  the  political  existence  of  the  community. 

Phryne’s  offering  apparently  consisted  of  three  statues,  for  beside  the  Eros  stood 
a statue  of  herself,  and  one  of  Aphrodite,  both  by  the  hand  of  Praxiteles : the  Eros 
probably  stood  between  the  two,9  and  the  group  was  analogous  to  that  of  the  Satyr 
between  Dionysos  and  Methe  (p.  31 1).  This  presentation  of  her  own  portrait  by 
the  hetaira  was  simply  in  accordance  with  an  old  custom.  We  are  expressly  told  that 10 
her  gilded  portrait  at  Delphi,  also  by  Praxiteles,  was  dedicated  by  the  hetaira  herself. 
The  material  of  this  statue  and  the  place  where  it  was  set  up  mark  an  advance 


1 Owing  to  his  relations  with  Philip,  Apelles  must  have  been  active  at  this  time. 

2 Sal.  Reinach  points  out  {Rev.  Crit.  1894,  p.  no)  that  Hyperides  was  very  little  older  than  Phryne  was 
according  to  our  assumption.  I see  in  this  no  reason  against  the  dating  proposed  above. 

3 Timokles,  apttd  Athen.  p.  567  c.  In  Aristoph.  Eccles.  1101,  Phryne  is  only  a name  given  to  any 

courtezan.  4 Poseidippos,  apttd  Athen.  p.  591  e. 

5 Xenoph.  Hell.  6,  3,  1.  Cf.  Von  Stern,  Gesch.  d.  spartan,  u.  theban.  Hegemonie,  p.  119. 

11  As  Sal.  Reinach  (Gao.  Arctntol.  1887,  283)  assumes,  by  placing  her  birth  about  B.C.  375.  In  335  she  may 
just  as  well  have  been  fifty  as  forty.  Overbeck  (Sachs.  Ber.  1893,  P-  4°  sc(l-)  places  Phryne’s  birth  (in  connexion 
with  his  wrong  late  dating  of  Praxiteles)  after  B.C.  372,  assuming  that  Thespiai  was  recolonized  again  imme- 
diately, a view  that  cannot  be  reconciled  with  tradition.  (Cf.  infra , note  8.) 

7 In  the  similar  case  of  Plataia,  this  is  expressly  stated.  Pans.  ix.  1,  8. 

8 As  Thespiai  seems,  like  Plataia,  not  to  have  been  rebuilt  till  after  Chaironaia — for  that  this  had  not  yet 
taken  place  in  343  is  proved  by  Demosthenes  (F.  L.  ill,  325) — Phryne’s  votive  gift  must  fall  in  the  time  when  the 
walls  were  in  ruins  and  the  citizens  scattered.  For  to  place  her  gift  after  the  rebuilding  would  contradict  all  we 
know  for  certain  about  Praxiteles.  And  why  should  Thryne  have  delayed  her  gift  to  her  ancestral  god  till  the 
Thespians  had  rebuilt  these  walls  and  were  again  politically  independent  ? 

» When  Alkiphron  (Overbeck,  S.  Q.  1271)  makes  Thryne  say  that  she  stood  in  the  middle  between  Eros  and 
Aphrodite,  he  is  evidently  merely  indulging  in  a rhetorical  period. 

1,1  Pans.  x.  15,  r.  The  statements  that  the  wepiKTioves  (Athenaeus)  or  the"EAA.7)('fs  (Aelinn)  had  dedicated 
the  statue  are  in  each  case  due  to  misunderstanding. 


APHRODITE 


-319 


upon  the  Thespian  offering,  so  that  it  must  have  been  the  later  work.  We  now  have 
to  consider  whether  there  exist  any  copies  of  these  statues. 

The  well-known  ‘Venus  d’ Arles  ’ (Fig.  1 36) 1 is  certainly  to  be  referred  to 
Praxiteles.  This  is  mainly  proved  by  the  extraordinary  likeness  of  the  head  to  the 
authentic  copies  of  the  Knidian  Aphrodite  {infra,  p.  322).  The  arrangement  of  the 
hair  with  its  double  fillet,  the  forehead,  the  contour  of  the  face — and  we  may 
add  the  bracelet  on  the  left  upper  arm — all  correspond  perfectly.  It  is  only  in 
details  that  the  forms  of  the  head  are  harder  and  more  constrained  ; the  eye  is 
less  deeply  set,  the  eyelids  are  rendered  in  the  old  manner,  and  the  drawing  of  the 
mouth  is  more  severe. 

An  examination  of  the  body  confirms  the  impression  that  the  Venus  of  Arles 
belongs  to  the  early  period  of  Praxiteles.  The  attitude  is  very  like  that  of  the 
Eirene  and  of  the  ‘ Satyr  pouring  out  wine  ’ : the  left  leg  bears  the  weight  of  the  body, 
the  left  forearm  is  outstretched  bearing  some  object  towards  which  the  head  is  turned 
and  inclined,  and  the  right  arm  is  raised.  As  in  the  Eirene  the  right  foot  is  not  drawn 
behind  the  other,  but  only  placed  to  the  side  in  Pheidian  fashion  with  the  heel  off  the 
ground.  One  of  the  muses  on  the  Mantineian  relief — the  one  playing  the  flute — is 
also  closely  related  in  the  whole  rhythm  of  her  attitude.  The  simple  broad  treatment 
of  the  drapery  corresponds  to  that  of  the  Eirene  and  to  the  relief  just  mentioned, 
which  is  a work  of  Praxiteles’s  youth.  Specially  characteristic  is  the  treatment  of  the 
nude,  which  so  far  as  youth  and  maiden  can  be  compared  is  closely  related  to  that  of 
the  Satyr  ; for  the  abdomen  is  still  flat,  and  the  whole  front  of  the  body  is  still  treated 
in  great  broad  planes,  ending  in  a harsh  line  at  the  side  ; the  thorax  is  broad,  and  the 
breasts,  very  youthful  in  form,  are  far  apart  ;2  the  undulation  of  the  hip  above  the 
supporting  leg  is  as  yet  only  slightly  indicated. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the  motive  of  the  Venus  of  Arles  : the  left  hand 
held  a mirror  ; the  right  was  raised  towards  the  head.  An  engraved  gem  3 of  the  early 
fourth  century  shows  a woman,  doubtless  an  Aphrodite,  with  a mantle  wrapped  in 
the  same  way  round  the  lower  part  of  the  body  and  a mirror  in  her  left  hand.  The 
terra-cottas  of  that  period  frequently  reproduce  the  same  design.4  The  partial  nudity 
of  the  figure  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  goddess  is  at  her  toilet. 

The  statue  belongs  to  the  period  of  the  Satyr  and  the  Thespian  Eros  ; therefore 
it  probably  represents  the  Aphrodite  which  stood  beside  the  latter  at  Thespiai. 

A statue  in  the  British  Museum  from  Ostia  (Fig.  137) 5 is  in  close  connexion  with 
the  one  just  described  ; it  is  a variant  of  the  same  motive,  with  the  sides  reversed.  The 
head  is  again  so  like  the  Venus  of  Knidos  that  we  must  refer  this  work  also  to 

1 Frohner,  Notice,  No.  137.  ‘ Thasian  ’ marble.  Right  arm  and  left  hand  new.  Drapery  worked  over,  head 

well  preserved  (cf.  supra,  vignette  on  title-page).  Cf.  Bernouilli,  Aphrodite,  p.  182  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmdler, 
No.  296.  An  excellent  replica  (torso)  was  found  in  Athens  near  the  theatre  (Friederichs-Wolters,  1456).  Cf. 
Reseller’s  Lex.  i.  413,  Z.  30.  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  300  A.  The  workmanship  of  this  torso  (in  the 
finest  Parian  Lychnites)  is  so  wonderful  that  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  notion  that  it  is  a replica  from  the  studio  of 
Praxiteles  himself  or  of  one  of  his  sons.  (For  a replica  of  the  Thespian  Eros  in  the  theatre  at  Athens,  cf.  supra, 
p.  317,  n.  4.) 

2 The  breasts  are  much  more  lifelike  in  the  Athens  torso  than  in  the  Paris  statue.  The  Athens  torso  gives  a 
much  better  idea  of  the  original. 

3 In  Berlin,  4631  ; scaraboid  from  Sparta;  judging  from  style  certainly  not  later  than  the  first  half  of  the 
fourth  century  ; even  the  attitude  of  rest  on  the  left  leg  corresponds  ; the  right  hand  moves  towards  the  head,  but 
does  not  hold  anything.  The  hair  is  bound  with  three  fillets  like  the  statue.  Broad  chest. 

4 Cf.  e.g.  Dumont-Chaplain,  C&amiques,  ii.  PI.  28,  1 ; here  the  raised  right  hand  holds  a band  for  the  hair. 
The  style  shows  that  this  figure  must  be  dated  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century.  The  attitude  of  rest  on  the 
left  leg  and  the  wide  flat  chest  are  very  like  the  Arles  statue. 

5 Friederichs-Wolters,  1455.  The  head  is  unbroken  ; the  left  arm  is  restored,  but  it  was  raised  ; the  right 
hand  is  new.  Frohner,  Notice,  p.  180,  calls  the  statue  an  ‘imitation’  of  the  Arles  statue, 


320 


PRAXITELES 


Praxiteles.  But  the  original  must  have  been  a later  work  than  the  Venus  of  Arles. 
The  attitude  and  action  are  less  constrained,  the  free  leg  is  drawn  more  back,  and, 
above  all,  the  head,  which  is  relatively  smaller,  is  turned  towards  the  side  of  the  free 
leg,  and  raised,  thus  destroying  all  the  repose  and  tranquillity  of  the  earlier  conception. 
The  drapery  is  richer  and  more  agitated,  and  falls  down  lower  on  the  one  side  ; the 


Fit;.  13 j. — ‘Venus  d’ Arles ’ (Louvre). 


bodily  forms  are  rounder  and  closely  related  to  the  Knidian  statue,  the  chest  is  no 
longer  so  broad  and  flat,  the  breasts  are  closer  together,  the  navel  is  sunk  deeper, 
and  the  lower  abdominal  line  is  treated  precisely  as  in  the  Knidian  statue. 

The  motive  also  was  certainly  identical  with  that  of  the  Venus  of  Arles  ; the  left 
hand  held  up  the  mirror,  and  the  right  may  have  held  some  other  toilet  requisite.  The 
whole  conception  lacks  the  dignity  and  repose  of  the  other  statue  ; this  maiden  has  a 
questioning,  self-conscious  look  ; rejoicing  in  her  beauty  she  raises  the  mirror — and 
cares  not  if  her  mantle  slips  down  a little  lower. 

It  seems  to  me  that  a Phryne  by  Praxiteles  must  have  looked  just  like  this — ideally 
beautiful  and  noble,  yet  different  enough  from  a goddess.  The  statue  of  Phryne  so 


PHRVNE 


321 


famous  in  antiquity  was  the  one  at  Delphi  ; as  we  saw,  it  was  later  than  the 
Thespian  offering.  It  is  this  statue  that  I should  like  to  imagine  as  the  original  of 
the  ‘ Townley  Venus.’  Of  both  the  portraits,  also,  between  which  she  was  placed — - 


Fig.  137. — The  Townley  Venus'  (Brit.  Mus.) 


King  Archidamos  of  Sparta  and  Philip  of  Macedon — copies  seem  to  exist,  found  in 
that  villa  at  Herculaneum  whose  owner  was  so  devout  an  admirer  of  Greek  philosophy.1 

1 An  Archidamos  is  preserved,  as  Wolters  (Rom.  Mittli.  1888,  113  seq.)  has  shown,  in  a terminal  bust  of  the 
Herculaneum  Villa.  Wolters  remembers  only  the  two  Archidamos  statues  of  Olympia,  and  not  the  Delphi 
portrait,  which  is  much  more  renowned ; he  concludes  from  the  style  that  the  terminal  bust  represents 
Archidamos  III.,  but  admits  the  similarity  of  the  portrait  to  that  of  Euripides.  The  resemblance  is  indeed  so 
strong  that  we  may  assume  the  same  artist  for  both  portraits.  The  stylistic  treatment  of  the  hair  in  the  Archi- 
damos points  to  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian  war,  therefore  the  statue  presumably  represents  the  Archidamos 
by  whose  name  the  first  period  of  the  war  was  designated.  It  is  not  impossible  that  Demetrios,  who  belonged  to 

T T 


322 


PRAXITELES 


After  the  Cynic  Krates  had  mocked  at  this  juxtaposition  of  a courtesan  and  a king, 
later  ages  cited  it  as  a typical  instance  of  Greek  licence.1 

The  Aphrodite  of  Knidos  must,  from  the  preceding  considerations,  be  assigned 
to  the  middle  period  of  the  career  of  Praxiteles.2  This  conjecture  is  strengthened  when 
we  remember  that  works  executed  for  three  towns  so  near  each  other,  and  so  far  from 
home  as  Knidos,  Kos,  and  Halikarnassos,  must  needs  be  of  about  the  same  date.  The 
Mausoleum  was  begun  in  353  B.C.,  so  that  the  statue  for  Knidos  should  be  dated  about 
350  B. C.  It  has  been  preserved  in  a series  of  copies  presumably  of  the  original  size, 
and  also  in  statuettes.  All  these  doubtless  reflect  the  style  and  design  of  the 
statue,  but  can  give  us  no  idea  of  its  subtler  qualities.  We  must  be  careful, 
however,  not  to  reckon  among  the  copies,  as  has  been  done  hitherto,  works  which 
are  really  later  independent  adaptations,  such  as  the  Munich  statue  and  the  little 
head  at  Olympia.3 

Praxiteles  has  represented  the  goddess  disrobed  for  the  bath,  in  the  act  of  laying 
aside  her  last  covering.  She  turns  her  head  quickly  round  in  the  direction  of  the 
free  leg,4  an  attitude  only  comprehensible  if  we  imagine  her  as  looking  about  her  to 
make  sure  her  privacy  is  not  threatened.  This  also  explains  the  instinctive  movement 
of  the  right  hand.  The  dominating  note  of  the  expression  is  its  absolute  freedom 
from  any  stronger  emotion — from  any  yearning  or  languishing.  It  was  only  in 
later  adaptations  that  voluptuous  suggestions  5 were  introduced,  but  the  goddess  of 
Praxiteles  produced  her  effect  by  the  purity  and  innocence  of  her  expression,  by 
her  simple  grace  and  noble  naturalness.  As  regard  bodily  forms,  the  statue  stands 
about  midway  between  the  older  type  of  the  ‘ Venus  of  Arles  ’ and  the  later  Medicean 
Venus.  Much  as  she  differs  from  the  former,  she  yet  also  differs  from  the  latter, 
especially  in  the  breadth  of  the  chest  and  in  the  modelling  of  the  contours,  which  are 
far  less  full  and  rounded. 

In  addition  to  the  nude  Aphrodite  of  Knidos,  an  entirely  draped  Aphrodite  by 
Praxiteles — probably  the  one  described  as  velata  specie  at  Kos — is  known  to  us  in  a 
poor  and  late  reproduction,  which  however  has  the  advantage  of  being  attested  by  docu- 

that  period,  might  be  the  artist  (cf.  p.  122,  n.  2).  The  Archidamos  was  found  in  the  Villa  Ercolanense  in  the  great 
peristyle  as  a companion  piece  to  a term  representing  a beardless  man,  who,  judging  from  style  and  type,  might 
very  well  be  Philip  of  Macedon,  who  stood  beside  the  Archidamos  at  Delphi.  Gercke  ( Bonner  Studien,  p.  141) 
suggests  Philhetairos,  instead  of  Philip,  but  the  lower  part  of  the  face,  which  deviates  from  the  fixed  type  of 
the  coins,  speaks  against  this  assumption. 

1 Trjs  Tali'  'EA.Afjt'au'  aKpacrlas  avddi yj.a,  Krates,  apud  Athen.  p.  591  b. 

2 Our  dating  of  Phryne  does  not  clash  with  this  in  the  least,  as  Sal.  Reinach  asserts  {Rev.  Crit.  1894.  no), 
for  of  course  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  anecdote  that  Phryne  sat  as  a model  to  the  sculptor. 

3 As  Michaelis  has  done  in  his  last  treatise  on  the  statue  (J.  H.  S.  1887,  324  seq.)  Cf.  my  remarks  in  Arch. 
Anz.  1891,  p.  140  seq.  Michaelis’s  list  of  copies  is  in  need  of  revision.  The  following  are  true  copies  of  the  Venus 
of  Knidos,  and  correspond  in  their  measurements  : (1)  = Mich.  A,  in  the  ‘ Magazino’  of  the  Vatican  ; bronze 
cast  in  the  Louvre  {cd.  Arch.  Anz.,  loc.  cit .);  head  unbroken  ; best  preserved  copy;  workmanship  good. — (2)  = Mich. 
D;  Helbig,  Museums,  316;  head  wrongly  adjusted;  modern  neck.  Poor,  leathery  work. — (3)  and  (4)  Museo 
Torlonia,  No.  106,  146  (but  not  No.  26,  which  Mich,  reckons  with  the  others)  ; both  much  restored. — (5)  = Mich.  C; 
Pal.  Pitti  ; body  good  ; head  wrongly  adjusted,  but  genuine. — (6)  Villa  Ludovisi,  Helbig,  Museums,  869  ; head 
readjusted  according  to  the  line  of  breakage  ; fair  copy,  which  passes  incorrectly  as  modern. — (7)  Torso  in 
Kaufmann  Coll.  (Berlin)  from  Tralles  ; the  head  {Ant.  Denkm.  i.  41)  is  the  best  copy  of  the  head. — (8)  Torso, 
Louvre,  No.  2885. — (9)  Torso  in  Villa  Medici,  wrongly  restored. — (10)  Bust  in  Louvre  = Frohner,  164;  neck 
unbroken. — (11)  Head  in  Louvre,  wrongly  given  to  a reclining  nymph  (Frohner,  454)- — (I2)  Head  in  Museo 
Chiaramonti,  No.  254  ; fair  work,  but  much  rubbed  over. — (13)  Head  in  Capitol,  Gal.  No.  39. — (14)  Head,  Mus. 
Boncompagni -Ludovisi,  No.  21. — Among  the  statuettes  there  is  one  very  good  and  well-preserved  copy  in  the 
Museo  Chiaramonti,  No.  119  c ; an  inferior  one  in  Potsdam  in  the  picture  gallery.  A bronze  not  quite  exact  in 
detail,  Frohner,  Coll.  Greau,  Bronzes,  PI.  26,  No.  927. 

4 The  turn  has  been  kept  especially  well  in  1,  6,  7,  10,  11. 

6 Especially  in  the  Munich  statue,  where  the  thighs  are  pressed  together. 


KOAN  APHRODITE 


323 


mentary  evidence.  It  is  a statue  in  the  Louvre  (Fig.  1 38),1  round  whose  plinth  runs  an 
ancient  inscription,  n pa%nekr)<;  eVo»;cre^,  dating  from  late  Imperial  times.  Until  a 
short  time  ago  this  inscription  was  only  known  from  a notice  in  Visconti,  and  had 
disappeared  because  the  ancient  plinth  had  been  let  in  or 
sunk  in  such  a manner  that  the  inscription  was  supposed 
to  be  lost.2  Lately  the  edge  of  the  plinth  has  been  set 
free,  and  the  inscription  is  again  legible.3  According  to 
every  analogy,  the  inscription  can  only  mean  that  the 
work  is  a copy  after  Praxiteles,  and  the  style  certainly 
confirms  this  view.  The  goddess  wears  a long  thin 

chiton,  girded  deep  about  the  hips  ; the  right  shoulder  is 
lowered,  allowing  the  garment  to  slip  slightly  off,  but  not 
so  as  to  expose  the  bosom.  The  attitude  is  as  simple 
as  that  of  the  Knidian  statue  ; the  weight  of  the 
body  is  thrown  on  to  the  right  leg,  the  left  shoulder  is 
much  raised,  the  right  hip  curved  outwards.  In  the 
copy  the  left  hand  rests  on  the  head  of  a little  Eros 

obviously  of  late  Roman  origin,  which  cannot  possibly  have 
belonged  to  the  original  ; it  doubtless  replaces  some  acces- 
sory which  was  not  to  the  liking  of  the  copyist  ; but 
if  the  hand  be  imagined  to  have  rested  on  a terminal 
figure  or  an  idol,  we  obtain  a motive  especially  popular  in 
the  time  of  Praxiteles.  The  head  is  unfortunately  missing.4 

The  main  charm  of  this  statue  must  have  resided  in  the  natural  treatment  of  the 
thin  semi-transparent  drapery.  The  copy  at  any  rate  still  allows  this  to  be  felt,  and 
shows  how  differently  the  artist  solved  the  problem  which  Alkamenes  had  essayed 

before  him  ( Venus  Genetrix,  p.  82).  Those  clinging  wet  draperies,  those  beautifully 

arranged  if  conventional  folds  of  the  earlier  artist,  are  quite  abandoned  in  the  Praxitelean 
period,  which  condemned  them  as  untrue  ; thus  here  also  Praxiteles,  in  the  multitude  of 
fine  flowing  folds,  is  striving  entirely  after  truth  of  effect.  The  lines  of  the  folds  are 
not  beautiful  in  themselves,  as  they  were  in  the  older  system,  but  they  are  charming 
(or  were  so  in  the  original),  because  they  reflect  the  rich  abundance  of  nature.  The  same 
drapery,  treated  in  the  same  way,  as  well  as  the  deep  girdle  and  the  slight  displacement 
of  the  drapery  on  one  shoulder,  is  seen  in  another  Praxitelean  work,  in  the  chiton  of 
the  Artemis  Brauronia,  a statue  which  I agree  with  Studniczka  in  thinking  we  have 
a copy  of  in  the  ‘ Diane  de  Gabies  ’ (Louvre).5  Further,  many  a work  of  later  times 
(like  the  celebrated  Flora  Farnese)6  was  evidently  inspired  by  the  Aphrodite  of  Kos. 

According  to  Studniczka’s  very  probable  suggestion,  the  Brauronia  of  Praxiteles 
was  set  up  on  the  Akropolis,  in  B.C,  346.  It  therefore  belongs  to  the  later  period 
of  his  artistic  activity.  He  must  evidently  have  returned  from  Asia  Minor  about 

1 Published  Bouillon,  t.  iii.  Statues , PI.  6,  7.  Clarac,  Musie,  PI.  341,  1291  (=  our  Fig.  138,  which  omits 
the  restored  head).  Cf.  Bernouilli,  Aphrodite , p.  iii,  No.  2. 

2 Cf.  Frohncr,  Notice , 151  ; Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  502. 

3 The  epigraphy  is  of  the  later  Imperial  period.  Sal.  Reinach  (Gaz.  Arch.  18S7,  259,  note  5)  called  attention 
to  the  inscription.  The  statue  is  not,  as  R.  supposes,  a replica  of  the  ‘ Genetrix.’ 

4 Head  and  right  shoulder  are  modern,  not  ancient  and  readjusted  as  Clarac  and  Frohner  assert. 

6 Studniczka,  Vermut.  z.  Kunstgesch.  p.  18  seq.  Robert  (Arch.  Marchen , p.  144.  seq.)  has  adduced  nothing 
decisive  against  this  supposition  ; cf.  p.  102,  note  3.  To  the  known  replicas  of  the  statue  should  be  added  a 
head  in  Berlin,  Shulpt.  625.  The  Praxitelean  Dionysos,  in  the  Plope  Coll,  at  Deepdene  (Surrey),  is  analogous  to 
this  Artemis  in  the  drapery  (Clarac,  695,  1614;  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1133). 

6 Clarac,  438  B,  795  D ; cf.  437,  792  (Munich  Glyptothek,  298). 


Fig.  138. — Statue  in  Louvre.  (From 
Clarac,  Mus.  de  Sc.  PI.  341) 


PRAXITELES 


O 1 A 

o-4 


this  time.  Shortly  before  this 
he  had  brought  to  a close  his 
work  in  Ephesos,  Halikarnas- 
sos,  Knidos,  and  Ivos. 

Belonging  apparently  to 
the  earlier  part  of  his  career 
is  another  statue  of  Artemis, 
of  which  the  best  copy  is  the 
one  at  Dresden1  (Figs.  139, 
140).  It  represents  the  god- 
dess as  a quite  young,  still 
undeveloped  girl,  wearing  a 
long  ungirt  tunic,  and  stand- 
ing in  a simple,  tranquil  at- 
titude, her  bow  in  her  left 
hand,  while  the  right  feels  for 
the  quiver  at  her  back.  The 
Praxitelean  authorship  is 
proved  by  the  type  of  the 
head,  which  corresponds  in 
contour  and  arrangement  of 
hair  with  the  Venus  of  Arles 
and  the  Knidian  Aphrodite, 
and  merely  introduces  into 
the  type  a maidenly,  almost 
childish  element.  It  is  above 
all  the  attitude  and  drapery 
of  the  Dresden  statue  which 
clearly  prove  its  early  origin. 
The  attitude,  with  the  un- 
weighted foot  placed  to  the 
side,  is  that  of  the  Eirene  and 
of  the  Venus  of  Arles.  Like  the 
Eirene,  too,  the  drapery  falls 
in  straight  folds  from  the 

1 Dresden,  Becker,  Augusteiim,  45  ; 
Clarac,  569,  1214  A;  Miiller-Wieseler, 
ii.  162  ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  606,  No.  2. 
Excellent  preservation.  Faithful  but 
rather  coarse  copyist’s  work.  P.  Herr- 
mann and  P.  Arndt  have  recognized  the 
Praxitelean  character  (cf.  Arndt-Bruck- 
nrann , Einzclvcrk.  to  No.  133). — Three 
replicas  in  Cassel,  heads  not  authentic  ; 
in  one  (ii.  19)  a piece  of  the  raised  right 
arm  is  antique. — A good  replica  in  Ber- 
lin, SJtulpt.  60  (remains  of  the  raised 
right  arm  antique). — Good  statue  in 
Villa  Borghese  (Arndt-Bruckmann, 
Einzelverk.  No.  133  ; head  foreign). 
An  Ionic  under-chiton  is  added.  The 
drapery  is  finer  and  better  executed  than 
in  the  Dresden  statue. 


Fig.  139. — Artemis  in  Dresden. 


ARTEMIS 


325 


right  knee,  but  whilst  the  Eirene  seeks  to  imitate  the  large  simple  folds  characteristic 
of  Pheidian  drapery,  the  Munich  Artemis  shows  a wealth  of  charming  detail  care- 
fully studied  from  nature.  There  is  an  astonishing  similarity,  except  that  the  sides 
are  reversed,  between  the  drapery  falling  from  the  knee  and  the  corresponding  portion 
on  one  of  the  Muses,  leaning  on  her  right  arm,  of  the  Mantineia  relief. 

This  statue  was  afterwards  slightly  altered  and  turned  into  an  Isis-Tyche,  by 
lowering  the  right  arm,  and  by  doing  away  with  the  quiver,  which  was  no  longer 
needed  to  explain  the  action  of  the  hand,  though  the  quiver-strap  was  retained 


Fig.  140. — Head  of  Artemis  (Dresden). 


because  it  gave  a special  charm  to  the  drapery  ; the  bow  in  the  left  hand  was  replaced 
by  a cornucopia,  and  an  Ionian  under-chiton,  visible  at  the  shoulders,  was  sometimes 
added.  The  best  copy  of  this  variant  is  at  Munich.1  Perhaps  the  basis  of  this  con- 
ception was  a Tyche  by  Praxiteles  himself,  with  features  borrowed  from  his  Artemis. 

1 Glypt.  113.  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkm.  No.  123.  The  ends  of  cui'ls  on  the  shoulders  are  antique. 
Thorwaldsen  rightly  restored  a horn  of  plenty  in  the  left  hand.  The  replica  noted  by  Winter  in  the  Pal.  Sciarra 
(Berlin,  Skulpt.  p.  529)  gives  the  true  interpretation.  The  goddess  holds  a horn  of  plenty  and  a snake  ; the  child 
Ilarpokrates  below.  Replicas,  known  as  such  by  the  lowered  right  arm,  the  Ionic  under-garment,  and  the 
absence  of  quiver,  are  : Clarac,  410  H,  837  A (with  horn)  ; Museo  Torlonia,  Taf.  64  and  251  (wrongly  restored 
in  a group)  ; Louvre,  1910  (Frohner,  Notice,  390),  etc.  The  type  referred  to  on  p.  60,  note  1,  is  related  to 
this  one. 


326 


PRAXITELES 


The  later  Orphic  identification  of  Tyche  and  Artemis1  may  be  derived  from  an 
earlier,  presumably  Eleusinian  conception. 

The  same  type  was  adopted,  actually  by  Praxiteles,  for  an  Athena.2  A small 
transverse  aegis  now  takes  the  place  of  the  quiver-strap  ; the  right  arm  is  raised  and 
rests  upon  a lance,  the  left  upon  a shield.  The  goddess  is  conceived  as  a graceful 
girl,  bright  and  gentle,  but  not  quivering  with  excitement,  like  the  youthful  Athena 
attributed  to  Skopas  [supra,  p.  305).  A head  in  Berlin,3  belonging  to  a large  statue 
now  lost,  bears  so  marked  a likeness  to  the  Knidian  Aphrodite  that  its  original  must 
have  been  a Praxitelean  work. 

We  must  not  pass  over  a remarkable  statuette  of  Artemis  from  Kition  in  Cyprus 
(Fig.  1 4 1 ).4  Here  also  the  goddess  is  conceived  as  a graceful  but  quite  young  girl 
in  a long  chiton.  She  is  leaning  against  an  idol.5  The  folds  of  drapery  round  the 
lower  part  of  the  body  are  quite  in  the  style  of  the  Dresden  Artemis.  The  head 
likewise  resembles  that  of  the  Dresden  statue,  save  that  the  knot  of  hair  is  rather 
different.  But  this  Cypriote  statuette  has  the  freshness  and  bloom  of  a work  which, 
however  slight,  is  yet  an  original.  It  is  so  thoroughly  Praxitelean  that  we  would 
gladly  call  it  a irapepyov  by  the  master  himself,  made  perhaps  when  he  was  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Cyprus,  at  Kos  or  at  Knidos. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  described,  a good  deal  of  Praxitelean  work  might 
certainly  be  recovered  from  the  statues  and  heads  of  other  female  divinities.6  But 
this  master’s  creations  have  given  rise  to  such  countless  variants  and  adaptations 
that  it  is  difficult  to  pick  out  what  was  originally  his.  Such  an  inquiry  would  lead 
us  too  far  from  our  immediate  object,  which  is  to  trace  the  main  points  in  the 
successive  developments  of  the  artist’s  style.  One  example  however  of  what  is  meant 
may  be  given.  Praxiteles  certainly  also  pourtrayed  older,  more  dignified  goddesses, 
such  as  Leto  for  example.  Some  such  type  it  is  that  underlies  the  famous  so-called 
‘ Hera  Ludovisi.’ 7 The  arrangement  of  the  front  hair,  the  forehead,  and  also  the 
lower  part  of  the  face  clearly  show  Praxitelean  forms.  In  spite  of  this,  the  work  is 
only  a Roman  creation  based  on  a Praxitelean  model  ; for  we  must  not  attempt  to 
deceive  ourselves  ; this  famous  ‘ Hera,’  which  passes  for  a type  of  ideal  beauty,  is 
in  reality  only  a Roman  empress  or  a lady  of  the  Imperial  family,  represented  as  a 
goddess,  as  a Ceres  or  Fortuna.  There  is  external  evidence  to  prove  this.  The 
arrangement  of  the  hair  at  the  back,  with  the  typical  plait  on  the  nape,  is  never  given 
to  goddesses.  It  is  the  special  fashion  of  the  Claudian  age,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  it 
occurs  at  no  other  period,  either  before  or  after.8  Further,  the  knotted  fillet  that 

1 Orph.  Hymn.  72. 

2 Statue  of  the  Villa  Borghese,  Helbig,  Museums,  935  ; Berichte  d.  Slichs.  Gesell.  1861,  Taf.  1,  2 ; 1865,  Taf. 
1,  2,  3.  The  head  is  foreign.  The  right  arm  was  certainly  raised.  The  drapery  corresponds  in  all  essentials 
with  the  Artemis  ; on  the  shoulders  an  Ionic  chiton  is  visible.  Poor  work.  Replica  in  Turin,  staircase  to  the 
Armeria  ; right  arm  raised  ; the  neck  new,  but  the  head  seems  genuine  : Corinthian  helmet,  hair  simply  taken 
back;  general  Praxitelean  character. — Museo  Chiaramonti,  No.  403  ; right  arm  raised,  head  foreign.  In  the 
later  statues  of  Athena,  all  sorts  of  Praxitelean  influences  may  generally  be  distinguished. 

3 Berlin,  Skulpt.  No.  78. — A head  in  the  Vatican  (Plelbig,  Museums,  229  ; Mus.  Pio  Clem.  vi.  2,  2)  is 
similar,  but  differs  in  the  proportions  and  in  the  turn  of  the  head. 

4 In  Vienna,  Jahrb.  d.  Kunsts.  d.  Oesterr.  Kaiserh.  v.  1887,  Taf.  i.  ii.  ; p.  1 sqq.  ( v . Schneider).  Ohnefalsch- 
Richter,  Kypros,  the  Bible  and  Homer,  PI.  203,  5 ; p.  318  sqq. 

s Cf.  the  Dionysos  at  Deepdene  mentioned  p.  323,  note  5. 

6 Note  especially  a Kore  statue  (head  preserved)  in  Vienna,  quite  lately  publ.  by  Rob.  v.  Schneider  [Jahrb. 
d.  Kunsts.  d.  Oesterr.  Kaiserh. ) 

7 Schreiber,  Villa  Ludovisi,  104;  Friederichs-Wolters,  1272;  Helbig,  Museums,  872;  Roscher’s  Lex.  i. 
2122  (Vogel);  Brunn,  Gotterideale,  p.  9. 

8 Cf.  Bernouilli,  Rom.  Lkonogr.  ii.  1,  181,  193,  182,  Fig.  27,  190,  Fig.  30.  Taf.  14,  15,  21.  The  elder 
Agrippina  has  on  her  coins  just  such  stiff  locks  as  the  ‘Hera.’  In  the  Ludovisi  inventory  for  the  year  1633 


Fig.  141. — Statuette  of  Artemis  from  Kition  in  Cyprus  (Vienna). 


328 


PRAXITELES 


passes  in  front  of  the  diadem  and  falls  down  at  the  sides  is  certainly  not  the  attribute 
of  any  goddess,  but  it  is  characteristic  of  the  Imperial  ladies  during  the  early  Empire, 
and  marked  them  as  priestesses,1  and  it  is  precisely  in  authentic  heads  of  the  Claudian 
age  that  we  find  this  same  combination  of  diadem  and  sacerdotal  fillet.2  There  are 
various  degrees  of  idealization  in  these  portraits  of  deified  women.  In  the  Hera 
Ludovisi  it  is  strongly  emphasized,  and  so  is  the  imitation  of  Praxitelean  style.  But 
a careful  copy  from  any  Greek  original  the  ‘Hera’  is  not,3  and  the  additions  in 
Roman  taste  are  clear  enough  to  be  unmistakable  to  us,  though  a former  school  of  art 
criticism  might  fail  to  distinguish  them. 

But  to  return  to  the  statues  of  Artemis.  If  we  assign  the  Diana  of  Gabii  to 
Praxiteles,  then  the  ‘ Diane  de  Versailles  ’ cannot  be  very  far  removed  from 
him.  For  the  types  of  head  are  nearly  related.  Above  all,  there  is  nothing  in 
this  celebrated  statue  which  could  not  belong  to  the  master’s  later  period.  Judging 
from  coins,  his  Artemis  at  Antikyra  4 must  have  been  very  similar.  The  ‘Diane’  is 
certainly  not,  as  was  formerly  believed,  a creation  of  the  Hellenistic  age.  No  such 
invention  remained  for  that  age,  for  all  these  types  of  divinities  had  been  created 
long  before.  Even  the  Belvedere  Apollo  has  lately  been  shown  to  be  a fourth- 
century  creation.5  The  Diana  may  well  be  derived  from  a work  by  the  master  of 
the  Apollo — a point  to  which  we  shall  have  to  return. 

Still  more  closely  related  to  Praxiteles  and  to  his  Artemis  of  Antikyra  is  a torso 
in  the  Jacobsen  Collection.0  It  is  very  like  the  Diana  of  Versailles,  though  it  is 
simpler,  with  less  of  a gliding  gait  and  a more  decided  stride  ; the  garment  is  open  at 
the  side  and  clings  closely  to  the  figure,  like  the  drapery  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Kos. 

Another  Artemis  type  also  belongs  to  the  later  period  of  Praxiteles,  and  is  the 
creation  of  the  master  himself.  It  shows  the  goddess  arrayed  as  in  the  Versailles 
statue,  with  a scarf  twisted  round  the  short  chiton  ; in  an  easy  unstudied  pose 
Artemis  is  leaning  her  left  elbow  on  a tree-trunk,  while  her  right  arm  rests  on  her 
hip.  A picturesque  negligence  of  dress  and  of  attitude  and  a certain  genial  natural- 


the  head  is  called  ‘ Giulia  ’ ; the  headdress,  characteristic  of  a portrait-head,  had  evidently  been  noticed  at 
that  time.  Since  Winckelmann,  the  interpretation  as  Hera  has  been  accepted,  and  sanctioned  by  Goethe,  Schiller, 
and  Humboldt.  Only  Conze  ( Familie  d.  Augustus,  p.  15)  doubted  the  Hera  interpretation,  and  suggested  Venus 
Regina.  From  the  work  on  the  diadem  he  ascribes  the  head  to  the  early  Imperial  period. 

1 Cf.  e.g.  the  Livia  from  Pompeii,  Bernouilli,  loc.  cit.  Taf.  5 ; the  Roman  lady  from  the  Heraion  in  Olympia, 
Attsgrab.  ii.  Taf.  30,  etc.  The  knotted  fillet  is  known  to  be  a priestly  attribute  ; cf.  e.g.  the  Archigallus 
relief,  Schreiber,  Kulturhist.  Bilderatlas.  Taf.  16,  9. 

2 Cf.  especially  the  Munich  head  in  Bernouilli,  loc.  at.  I93>  where  diadem,  fillet,  and  the  knot  in  the  neck 
correspond  with  the  ‘ Hera,’  but  the  front  hair  and  face  are  like  a portrait.  The  head  of  the  Beilin  colossal 
statue  ( Skulpt.  5S7)  is  closely  related  to  the  ‘ Hera,’  though  it  is  a very  inferior  work  ; it  has  never  been  separated 
from  the  statue.  The  Ludovisi  statue  probably,  like  this  one,  had  a horn  of  plenty  on  the  left  arm.  Peihaps  it 
represented  Antonia,  the  consort  of  Nero  Drusus.  She  appears  on  the  reverse  of  her  gold  and  silvei  coins  as 
Constantia  Augusti  in  chiton  and  mantle,  with  horn  of  plenty  on  the  left  arm,  with  torch  raised  aloft  in  hei  light 
hand,  and  wearing  a diadem  and  side  curls.  The  head  on  the  obverse  always  has  the  knotted  hair  in  the  neck. 

3 The  head  with  diadem  and  tied  fillet,  which  is  placed  on  the  statue  of  the  Villa  Albani,  711  (Helbig, 
Museums,  844),  is  much  more  markedly  Praxitelean  (photo.  Bruckmann). 

4 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Numism  Comm.  PL  Y 17  ; Bauermeister,  Denkm.  p.  I4°5  1 Ath.  Mittli. 
xiv.  229,  Taf.  7-  The  hair  seems  to  have  been  dressed  in  the  same  way  as  that  of  the  Versailles  statue.  1 01 
head-type  cf.  the  coins  of  Ephesos  of  the  third  century,  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Ionia,  PL  x.  4,  xi.  1,  2. 

5 Winter  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  p.  164^.  Cf.  infra. 

6 Ny  Carlsberg  Glypt.  No.  1048  ; no  drapery  round  the  hips  ; where  the  quiver-band  and  girdle  meet,  a 
ram’s  head  serves  as  buckle  ; this,  the  arms  of  Delphi,  would  be  specially  appropriate  in  the  statue  of  Antikyia. 
The  statue  has  the  same  turn  of  the  head  as  the  one  in  Versailles.  The  coin  gives  the  head  in  piofile  simply 
because  the  full  face  is  not  suitable  to  a coin.  The  more  marked  stride  is  clearly  rendered  on  the  coin.  The  left 
hand  must  have  carried  the  torch,  the  right  the  bow.  On  the  left  knee  and  behind  on  the  torso  aie  piotubeiances 
of  uncertain  purport.  The  Jacobsen  torso,  No.  1049,  is  of  Pergamene  style,  and  quite  different  from  No.  1048. 


THE  RESTING  SATYR 


329 


ness  of  treatment  show  us  the  sculptor  in  his  later  development.  This  work  is 
preserved  in  a marble  torso  of  the  Museo  Chiaramonti.1  It  is  highly  probable  that 
a marble  bust  in  the  Hermitage2  belongs  to  this  type,  and  affords  an  idea  of 
the  lofty  beauty  of  the  head.  The  hair  is  combed  back  as  in  the  Brauronia,  but 
coiled  round  at  the  back  in  a plait.  The  head  is  bent,  and  has  a gay,  gracious 
expression.  This  pose  of  the  head  and  the  facial  forms  resemble  the  Hermes  of 
Olympia  as  nearly  as  may  be,  considering  the  different  personalities  represented. 
The  composition  as  a whole  appears  to  be  preserved  only  on  a Greek  votive  relief, 
which  itself  is  probably  a fourth-century  work.3  A Tanagra  terra-cotta  gives  a later 
adaptation  of  the  design.4 

With  this  statue  and  the  statuette  from  Cyprus,  mentioned  above,  we  come  to 
another  group  of  Praxitelean  figures — those  which  lean  with  one  arm  on  some 
support.  In  his  first  period  the  artist  does  not  seem  to  have  been  attracted  by  this 
attitude,  which  we  meet  for  the  first  time  in  his  middle  and  later  period  ; it  is 
coincident  with  a broader,  more  pictorial  style,  as  opposed  to  the  more  studied,  almost 
constrained  motives  of  his  earlier  works.  Peloponnesian  influence  has  now  fallen 
into  the  background,  and  the  artist  follows  only  his  own  natural  bent. 

The  motive  was  specially  curious  in  the  case  of  Artemis,  for  it  seems  unsuited 
to  her  active  energetic  personality.  So  much  the  more  clearly  does  the  artist’s  ten- 
dency declare  itself.  The  same  remark  is  true  of  the  Satyr,  that  frolicksome  creature 
whom  Praxiteles  yet  presents  to  us  in  a graceful,  contemplative  attitude.  After  he 
has  shaken  himself  free  from  the  older,  more  conventional  statuary  themes  the  master 
gives  the  fullest  expression  to  his  own  longing  for  cheerful  realism  and  repose — as 
contrasted  with  the  Skopasian  love  of  violent  movement  and  excitement.  I11  the 
‘resting  Faun’5  we  have  a work  belonging  to  his  middle  period.  Its  Praxitelean 
origin  can  hardly  be  doubtful,  although  the  statue  cannot  be  identified  with  any 
Satyr  handed  down  by  tradition.  (It  certainly  is  not  the periboetos , which  was  part  of 
a group.)  The  Praxitelean  authorship  is  not  proved  merely  by  the  evident  renown  of 
the  work  and  by  the  gentle  grace  of  the  figure  : another  and  more  definite  reason  lies 
in  the  likeness  of  the  head  to  that  of  the  Eubouleus  (Plate  XVI.)0  The  breadth  of  the 
face,  due  to  an  exclusive  attention  to  the  front  view,  the  shape  of  the  forehead — with 
its  well-marked  horizontal  modulations,  the  luxuriant  crown  of  hair  confined  by  the 

1 No.  122.  Clarac,  573,  1228.  Good  workmanship,  badly  restored.  Drapery  specially  lifelike.  The 
raised  left  shoulder  shows  that  the  forearm  was  raised  and  supported. 

2 188  B.  Made  into  a bust  in  ancient  times.  The  breast  shows  the  chiton  and  the  mantle  on  the  left 
shoulder,  but  the  folds  are  not  the  same  as  in  the  torso,  and  the  quiver  band  is  absent. 

3 In  Villa  Albani,  against  the  wall  in  the  garden,  No.  295.  To  the  left  three  worshippers,  to  the  right 

Artemis  in  the  type  described  (head  broken  off);  below  a dog.  Drapery  and  attitude  correspond  with  the 
Chiaramonti  torso.  4 Samml.  Sabouroff,  PI.  125,  126. 

5 Cf.  Friederichs-Wolters,  1216;  Helbig,  Museums,  525;  Berlin,  Skulpt.  258,  259;  Brunn,  Glypt.  105. 
Among  the  replicas  note  the  Capitoline  statue,  smooth  and  elegant,  apparently  of  the  period  of  Hadrian.  The 
copies  of  Villa  Borghese  (Helbig,  Museums,  943),  of  Villa  Albani,  No.  no,  and  of  Museo  Torlonia,  No.  113,  are 
very  good.  The  two  in  the  Vatican  (Helbig,  21 1,  55),  and  that  of  the  Lateran  (Helbig,  639),  are  inferior  ; on 
the  Braccio  Nuovo  copy  the  antique  fragment  of  a pedum  on  the  right  upper  arm  is  an  addition  of  the  copyist. 
The  best  copy  of  the  body  is  the  Palatine  torso, in  the  Louvre.  Among  the  heads,  one  in  Vienna  is  to  be  noted, 
because  the  beautiful  nose  is  antique.  There  is  a celebrated  head  in  the  Hope  collection  at  Deepdene,  in  Surrey 
(cf.  Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculpt,  p.  270),  but  I have  unfortunately  never  seen  it.  [I  was  enabled  to  see  this  beautiful  head 
in  the  summer  of  1893  : every  effort,  however,  made  to  obtain  a photograph  of  it  for  the  English  edition  of  this  book 
has  proved  of  no  avail. — E.  S.]  Of  smaller  replicas  we  may  mention  the  one  in  Museo  Chiaramonti,  582,  and 
the  one  in  Tripolitza  (cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  1879,  p.  144,  1).  The  owner  told  me  in  1878  that  it  came  from  Sparta  ; 
it  is  a good  copy  ; the  part  under  the  eyes  is  more  hollowed  out  than  usual. 

3 Benndorf  (Anz.  d.  Wiener  Akad.  1887,  Nov.  16)  laid  stress  on  the  rounded  form  of  the  skull,  the  full 
hair,  and  the  fillet  that  presses  into  it  as  points  of  resemblance  between  the  Satyr  and  the  Eubouleus. 

U U 


330 


PRAXITELES 


chaplet,  and  the  way  it  falls  at  the  sides  and  on  the  nape  of  the  neck,  are  strikingly 
alike  in  both  heads.  We  must  mention,  too,  one  special  point  of  likeness  to  the 
Hermes — in  the  form  of  the  foot,  which  has  the  characteristic  great  toe,  slender 
above  and  broadening  at  the  end,  separated  from  the  others  by  a wide  interval. 

If  we  compare  the  body,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  works  of  the  early  period,  and, 
on  the  other,  to  the  Hermes,  we  shall  find  that  this  Satyr  comes  between  the  two. 
In  the  body  the  artist  has  certainly  not  attained1  to  the  same  degree  of  roundness 
as  in  the  Hermes  : on  the  contrary,  the  older  manner  is  still  quite  evident  in  the  broad 
planes,  in  the  harsh  depression  between  the  straight  and  the  oblique  abdominal  muscles, 
and,  above  all,  in  the  flat  form  of  the  abdomen  itself.  The  treatment  of  the  body  is  still 
far  removed  from  the  stage  reached  in  the  Hermes  ; still  it  is  more  advanced  than  in 
the  Satyr  pouring  wine  ; the  pubic  region,  for  instance,  is  enlivened  by  little  furrows 
treated  with  great  delicacy.  In  the  unconstrained  easy  design,  in  the  picturesque 
draping  of  the  panther-skin,  which  lies  across  the  figure,  in  the  exclusive  attention  paid 
to  the  front  view,  and  above  all  in  the  whole  formation  of  the  head,  Praxiteles  has  given 
unrestrained  expression  to  his  own  new  method,  and  thrown  aside  all  that  had  bound 
him  to  older  models ; but  in  the  formation  of  the  body  he  had  not  yet  gone  quite  so  far. 

With  this  conclusion  it  is,  however,  impossible  to  reconcile  Brunn’s  view, 
founded  on  generalizations,  that  the  Hermes  is  an  early  work,  the  Satyr  a mature 
one.2  Brunn  even  thought  that  he  had  found  the  original  of  the  Satyr  in  a 
torso  from  the  Palatine  in  the  Louvre.  The  torso  however  is  unfortunately  only  a 
copy — a good  one,  it  is  true,  but  no  better  than  other  good  copies  ; even  the  material, 
a coarse-grained  marble  cold  and  white  in  tone,  and  possibly  Thasian,  but  certainly 
not  Parian,  is  never  found  in  Greek  works  of  the  good  period,  though  it  is  common  in 
later  copies.  The  work  too  is  in  many  places  quite  lifeless,  and  the  modelling  lacks 
the  finer  touches  ; it  is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  part  round  the  collar-bone 
and  the  shoulder  with  the  corresponding  portion  of  the  Hermes  in  order  to  grasp 
thoroughly  the  difference  between  an  original  and  a copy. 

The  blithe  beauty  of  the  conception  and  the  entrancing  sweetness  of  the  head, 
with  the  delicate  smile  on  its  lips,  easily  explain  the  reputation  of  the  statue. 
Protogenes,  a painter  whose  originality  was  in  inverse  proportion  to  his  admirable 
technique,  early  utilized  the  design  for  a picture,3  and  there  are  still  later  adaptations 
in  marble  which  give  to  the  Satyr  coarser  forms,  a prominent  abdomen,  and  crossed 
legs,  and  make  him  play  the  fluted 

We  have  already  reckoned  with  the  Eubouleus  (Plate  XVI.)  as  with  an  authentic 
work  of  Praxiteles,  for  such  we  must  maintain  it  to  be,  in  spite  of  a contrary  opinion5 
that  has  lately  been  gaining  ground.  The  Roman  copyists,  as  an  inscription  tells  us, 
copied  the  head  of  the  ‘Eubouleus  of  Praxiteles.’  Now,  to  assume  with  Kern  that 
this  Praxiteles  may  be  any  other  artist  who  bore  the  name6  would  be  as  perverse  as  if 

1 The  copies  all  agree  in  this  particular.  2 Deutsche  Rundschau,  viii.  200. 

3 Strabo,  14,  p.  652;  Plin.  35,  106.  Stephani  (Compte  Rendu,  1870—71,  p.  99)  wished  to  refer  to  this 
statue  the  marble  figures  of  the  resting  Satyr,  which  is  impossible.  The  painter  made  use  of  the  sculptor  as 
Eupompos  made  use  of  Polykleitos. 

4 e.g.  Berlin,  Skitlpt.  260,  261  ; Samml.  Sabouroff,  Text  to  Plate  77,  78,  p.  2,  note  6. 

5 Kern,  in  At  A.  Mitth.  xvi.  1 sqq.,  also  Helbig,  Fiihrer,  ii.  p.  413.  Sal.  Reinach  expresses  doubt  in 
Chronique  d' Orient,  xxiv.  21,  and  in  Daremberg  et  Saglio,  Diet,  d'antiqu.  ii.  850;  Rubensohn  differs,  with 
good  grounds,  Die  Mysterienheiligtiimer  in  Eleusis  und  Samothrake  (1892),  p.  10,  36  sqq. , 197  sqq.  Kalkmann 
{Prop.  d.  Gesichts,  p.  82)  cites  the  Eubouleus  as  non-Praxitelean. 

6 Loc.  cit.  20,  with  reference  to  the  Praxiteles  inscriptions  of  Roman  times,  Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  318,  319  (to 
which  should  be  added  AeAnW  apx ■ 1888,  177;  1889,  32).  These,  however,  all  come  from  Greece,  and  were 
written  on  bases  not  of  copies  but  of  original  works,  mostly  portraits,  and  are  worded  like  original  inscriptions. 
The  wording  Ev/8ovAevs  npapTeAoiis  proves  that  the  work  was  a copy. 


THE  EUBOULEUS 


331 


in  the  case  of  an  inscription  from  a copy  of  a ‘ Madonna  by  Raphael  ’ we  chose  to 
doubt  whether  the  celebrated  Raphael  or  some  other  artist  of  the  same  name  were 
intended.  The  Eubouleus  in  question  must  have  been  by  the  celebrated  Praxiteles, 
whose  works  were  so  popular  among  the  Roman  copyists,  and,  since  Eleusis  is  the 
only  place  where  we  know  of  an  independent  cult  of  Eubouleus  without  the  addition 
of  some  other  name,  it  is  at  Eleusis  that  the  original  of  the  Roman  copy  must  have 
stood.  There  are  two  extant  copies  of  the  work,1  in  addition  to  which  the  original 
itself  has  been  found  at  Eleusis.  The  identification  of  this  head,  which  evidently 
represents  an  Eleusinian  divinity  and  is  eminently  Praxitelean,  with  the  Eubouleus  of 
the  inscription,  suggests  itself  at  once,  and  is  confirmed  by  subsequent  evidence. 

The  identification  has  lately  been  opposed  on  mythological  grounds,  and  it  has 
been  assumed  that  the  ‘ Euboulos,’  or  ‘ Eubouleus,’  of  Eleusis  was  only  a surname  of 
Zeus.  But  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Eubouleus  of  Eleusis  is  neither  Pluto  nor  Zeus, 
nor  any  other  divinity,  but  Eubouleus  himself. 

An  inscription  of  the  fifth  century 2 shows  that  he  was  worshipped  with  Kore, 
Demeter,  Triptolemos,  and  two  divinities  called  6 #eo< > and  7)  9ed,  who  are  represented 
on  a votive  relief  ;3  and  a later  inscription  4 gives  the  names  of  the  priests  of  this 
divine  couple  and  of  Eubouleus.  This  ‘ Eubouleus  ’ was  also  worshipped  inde- 
pendently at  Eleusis,5  where  he  must  have  been  regarded  as  an  under-world  divinity, 
since  the  pig  and  the  serpent  are  known  to  have  entered  into  his  ritual  ;6  but  he  had  a 
separate  existence,  just  like  the  couple  #eo?  and  0ea,  who  were  probably  akin  to  Pluto 
and  Persephone,  though  at  Eleusis  they  had  their  own  independent  cult,7  even  as 
Klymenos  and  Pluto8  existed  side  by  side  at  Hermione.  The  name  Eubouleus, 
whatever  its  meaning,  be  it  the  wise  counsellor,  the  well-disposed  or  well-intentioned, 
or  a combination  of  both,9  belongs  to  that  series  of  euphemistic  names  given  in 
shuddering  propitiation  to  the  powers  of  the  under-world,10  in  order  to  induce  them  to 
exert  only  the  beneficent  side  of  their  natures. 

The  tendency  to  connect  and  identify  separate  divinities  with  one  or  other  of  the 
great  canonical  gods  was  at  work  from  the  earliest  days,  and  is  assuredly  a main  factor 
in  the  progressive  simplification  of  the  primitive  complexity.  But  the  individual,  the 
special,  the  living  elements  peculiar  to  a cult  are  always  there  from  the  beginning,  and 
it  is  only  later  on  that  they  get  incorporated  into  another  cult  and  eventually  absorbed. 

‘ Eubouleus,’  who  in  the  conservative  ritual  of  Eleusis  retained  his  individuality,  is 
older  than  the  ‘ Zeus  Eubouleus  ’ of  the  islands,  where  the  male  divinity  worshipped 
with  Demeter  and  Kore  was  affiliated  to  Zeus,  who  in  his  character  of  Chthonios  was 
also  a deity  of  the  under-world.  There  are  countless  examples  to  show  that  the  lesser 

1 So-called  Virgil  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  (Helbig,  Museums , 463)  and  in  Mantua  (Arndt-Bruckmann, 
Einzelverk.  No.  17),  both  recognized  by  Benndorf  as  exact  replicas  of  the  Eleusinian  head.  The  head  published 
by  Heydemann  ( Marmorkopf-Riccardi , Taf.  1)  is  of  a different  type.  2 Dittenberger,  Syll.  13. 

3 ’Ecprj/r.  apx ■ 1886,  Taf.  3,  I.  The  relief  belongs  to  the  late  fourth  or  third  century  B.c. 

4 Ibid.  Taf.  3,  2 (relief  of  Lakrateides).  5 Ibid.  p.  262. 

6 Cf.  Kern,  loc.  cit.  11. 

7 In  Sammlung  Sabouroff,  i.  Einl.  Skulpt.  p.  22,  note  1 , p.  29,  I pointed  out  that  fleds  and  fled  cannot 

be  identified  with  Pluto  and  Persephone,  and  that  it  is  futile  to  try  to  name  them  at  all.  Topffer  ( Attische 
Geneal.  p.  33)  and  Rohde  ( Psyche , i.  196)  express  the  same  opinion.  It  is  retrogression  to  identify  them  again 
as  Kern  does  (loc.  cit.  p.  6)  with  Pluto  and  Persephone.  On  one  relief  Demeter  and  Persephone  are  seated  beside 
the  fled,  and  on  the  other  Persephone  was  represented  in  addition  to  the  flea,  as  the  complementary  fragment 
found  through  Heberdey  and  Reichel  proves  (Ath.  Mitth.  xvii.  127)  : fleds  and  fled  are  here  an  absolutely 
separate  pair  beside  Persephone  and  Pluto.  8 Paus.  ii.  35,  10.  Cf.  Rubensohn,  loc.  cit.  198. 

9 Sal.  Reinach  in  Daremberg  et  Saglio  (Diet.  ii.  849)  lets  both  interpretations  stand. 

10  Cf.  Sammlung  Sabouroff , loc.  cit.  22.  Cf.  ibid,  note  2,  where  Kern  could  have  seen  that  the  inscription  from 
Lebadeia  (mentioned  by  him,  p.  10),  which  seems  to  prove  that  the  name  Eubouleus  was  applied  also  to 
Trophonios,  was  already  quoted. 


PRAXITELES 


deities  partly  retained  their  original  individuality,  and  partly  became  annexed  to  some 
one  of  the  greater  gods  ; for  instance,  one  of  the  mother  goddesses  was  worshipped 
in  Attika  separately  as  Kourotrophos,1  and  also  as  one  with  Ge  or  Dcmeter  ; the  same 
is  the  case  with  Pandrosos  and  Athena  Pandrosos,  Hygieia  and  Athena  Hygieia, 
Erechtheus  and  Poseidon  Erechtheus,  Peitho  and  Aphrodite  or  Artemis  Peitho, 
Hekate  and  Artemis  Hekate,  Eilcithyia  and  Artemis  or  Hera  Eileithyia,  Iphigeneia 
and  Artemis  Iphigeneia,  Eukleia  and  Artemis  Eukleia,2  Aristaios  and  Zeus  Aristaios 
(in  Keos),  Asklepios  and  Zeus  Asklcpios,  Maleatas  and  Apollo  Maleatas,  etc. 

Legend,  which  is  wont  to  enter  into  facts  of  belief  and  ritual  as  a secondary 
element,  called  forth  into  existence  the  distinct  mythological  personality  of  Eubouleus 
in  the  ritual  of  Eleusis.  The  story  grew  out  of  the  customary  offering  and  burial  of 
young  pigs,  and  Eubouleus  was  made  into  a swineherd,  whose  swine  had  been  swallowed 
up  in  the  chasm  when  the  earth  opened  at  the  rape  of  Kore.  Kern  has  well  shown  how 
the  myth  arose  from  the  ritual,3  but  it  is  purely  arbitrary  to  call  the  myth  late,  and 
to  assume  without  the  slightest  foundation  an  older  stage  in  which  the  swineherd  of 
Eleusis  was  no  other  than  Zeus  himself.  Legends  that  arise  out  of  rituals  are  by  no 
means  usually  of  late  origin.4  On  the  other  hand,  Triptolcmos  the  neatherd  is  only  a 
later  duplicate  of  Eubouleus  the  swineherd.5 6 7  Now,  as  legend  could  find  no  place  for 
Eubouleus  as  a god  of  the  under-world,  it  accordingly  changed  him  into  an  heroic 
attendant  on  the  great  goddesses  ; he  became  brother  to  Triptolemos,  and  also  the 
son  of  Dcmeter,  and  as  such  he  came,  even  as  Triptolemos,  to  be  conceived  of  as 
youthful.  The  monuments  will  now  show  that  this  aspect  of  Eubouleus  is  familiar 
in  the  fine  period  of  art. 

On  one  of  those  Attic  statuette  vases  (Fig.  142)  on  which  the  boy  Iakchos  appears 
so  often  there  is  a youth  with  thick  locks  of  hair,  high  diadem  and  wreath,  standing  like 
a god,  his  mantle  draped  about  his  lower  limbs,  holding  a sucking-pig  in  his  right 
hand,  and  in  his  left  a bundle  of  the  twigs  or  the  ears  of  corn  5 used  in  the  mysteries 
of  Eleusis.'  The  same  figure,  only  represented  in  movement,  appears  on  the  cele- 
brated Attic  hydria,8  decorated  with  a frieze  in  relief  of  the  Eleusinian  gods  ; here 
the  youth  stands  close  to  the  great  goddesses.  The  statuette  vase  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  he  is  not  a mere  sacrificial  attendant ; he  must  be  a divinity,  and  as  a fact 
the  figure  can  only  be  satisfactorily  and  fully  explained  by  reference  to  the  myth  of 
Eubouleus,  which  must  accordingly  have  been  current  in  the  fourth  century,  the 
period  to  which  the  vases  belong. 


1 A votive  relief  from  Athens  in  Dresden  shows  the  goddess  as  Kourotrophos  with  a torch  (in  the  Hekate 
type),  conjoined  with  Apollo,  Leto,  and  Artemis  ( Jahrb . d.  Arch.  Inst.  Anz.  1894,  p.  26).  Dedication  to  the 
goddess  Kourotrophos  on  a cup  from  the  Peiraieus,  ’E<prifj..  apx ■ 1884,  p.  194,  6.  Sacrifice  to  her,  C.  /.  A.  ii. 
481,  59.  Prayer  in  Aristoph.  Thesm.  299. 

2 Cf.  the  interesting  passage  in  Plut.  Ansteid.  concerning  Eukleia  at  Plataia  ; some  identified  her  with 

Artemis,  others  not.  3 Loc.  cit.  16. 

4 After  the  publication  of  O.  Muller’s  Prolegomena,  it  should  no  longer  be  necessary  to  say  that  the  fact  of  a 
legend  only  appearing  in  later  sources  proves  nothing  against  its  antiquity. 

5 As  Kern  shows  (loc.  cit.),  Triptolemos  the  neatherd  is  connected  with  Alexandria  and  Osiris.  This 
naturally  proves  nothing  with  regard  to  the  swineherd. 

6 For  its  use  in  the  Eleusinian  cultus,  see  Arch.  Anz.  1892,  p.  106,  notice  to  No.  19.  Of  great  importance 
in  this  connexion  is  a fragmentary  B.  F.  vase  in  the  Museum  at  Eleusis.  It  represents  a procession  of  men  and 
women,  all  bearing  the  bundles  of  twigs  which  belong  to  the  mystic  cultus. 

7 The  vase  is  published  in  Frohner’ s Catalogue  of  the  Piot  Collection,  Paris  1890,  No.  153,  p.  42  (=  our 
Fig.  142).  Frohner  mistakes  the  pig  for  a hare.  A replica  of  the  figure  was  in  the  Coll.  Greau  (Frohner,  Coll. 
Griau,  Terrescuites  Gr.  1891,  PI.  40,  No.  462) ; the  form  is  founded  on  the  Piot  example,  but  the  bundle  on  the 
left  arm  (it  was  put  on  separately)  is  missing  ; the  pig  is  better  preserved. 

8 Stephani,  Compte  Rendu,  1862,  Taf.  3 ; Gerhard,  Ges.  Akad.  Abh.  Taf.  78  ; Heydemann,  Marmorkopj 
Riccardi,  p.  14  seq.  The  vase  is  certainly  Attic. 


THE  EUBOULEUS 


333 


A striking  confirmation  of  this  Eubouleus  type  is  afforded  by  a marble  statuette 
at  Eleusis1  which  corresponds  with  the  terra-cottas  in  all  essentials.  The  boy,  whose 
soft  round  face  and  luxuriant  hair  resemble  the  marble  head,  carries  on  the  left  arm 
the  bundle  of  ears,2  and  in  the  right  hand  may  be  seen 
the  fragments  of  a small  pig.3  Here  too  he  wears  the 
mantle,  as  befits  a god.  The  workmanship  shows  the 
figure  to  belong  to  the  fourth  or  third  century  B.C. 

Another  Eleusinian  monument  represents  a different 
type  of  Eubouleus  ; it  is  the  newly  reconstructed  relief 
of  Lakrateides.4  The  boy  at  the  end  on  the  right,  with 
long  hair  and  short-sleeved  chiton,  who  holds  a torch, 
can  scarcely  be  other  than  Eubouleus,  whose  priest 
Lakrateides  is.  He  stands  beside  the  pair,  deo?  and 
Bed,  as  Triptolemos  stands  beside  Demeter  and  Kore. 

Triptolcmos  wears  the  same  sleeved  chiton  as  he,  and 
high  boots,  which  we  may  also  assume  for  Eubouleus 
(the  legs  arc  missing).  This  type,  established  for 
Eubouleus  by  the  Lakrateides  relief,  occurs  on  five  Attic 
vases  in  conjunction  with  the  divinities  of  Eleusis.5  It 
is  a youth  who  appears,  cither  alone  or  with  Triptolemos 
and  Dionysos,  as  a companion  of  the  two  great  god- 
desses. Like  Iakchos  in  the  group  of  the  elder  Praxi- 
teles, he  is  their  torch-bearer,  or  he  holds  the  sceptre, 
like  the  Iakchos  issuing  from  the  earth,  on  another  vase.0 
He  usually  wears  an  embroidered  festal  robe  with 
tight  sleeves,  and  high  boots.  This  type  is  influenced 
by  the  type  of  Iakchos,  but  the  former  one  was  created 
for  Eubouleus. 

Finally,  we  must  mention  another  Eleusinian  monu- 
ment which  represents  Eubouleus,  this  time  shortened 
into  a bust 7 like  the  Praxitelean  work.  It  appears  in 
relief  on  a tablet  set  up  within  an  aedicula  which  is  supported  on  a pillar,  just  the 
arrangement  which  I imagined  we  must  assume  for  the  Praxitelean  head.s  The  head 
has  again  the  full  soft  features  and  almost  feminine  neck,  also  long  shoulder-curls  like 
the  Eubouleus  of  the  Lakrateides  relief. 

1 Noted  by  me  in  1894  in  the  Eleusis  Museum. 

2 The  lower  part  of  the  bundle  shows  plastic  stripes,  above  it  is  painted  red. 

,!  The  forelegs  are  still  recognizable.  4 In  the  Museum  at  Eleusis. 

5 Gerhard,  Ges.  Akad.  Abh.  Taf.  77  (youth  with  two  torches).  Ibid.  Taf.  71,  r (youth  to  the  left  of  Demeter 
with  one  torch).  Hydria  in  Athens,  Coll,  of  the  Arch.  Society,  No.  2722  (youth,  with  sceptre,  short-sleeved  chiton, 
and  high  boots,  beside  Demeter,  Kore,  and  the  bull-horned  Dionysos.  Style  of  fourth  century,  polychrome  and  gilt). 
Ilydria  of  the  same  style  from  Coll.  Castellani  (Frohner,  Coll.  Cast.  Rome,  1884,  PI.  ii.),  now  in  the  Tyszkiewicz 
Coll,  (youth  in  long  chiton  and  mantle,  with  twisted  curls,  carrying  a sceptre).  Vase  in  Athens,  Arch.  Soc.  No. 
2382,  fine  fifth-century  style  ; three  figures  separated  by  palmettes  and  the  handle  : Demeter,  Kore,  and  youth  wearing 
boots  and  an  embroidered  garment.  This  vase  alone  refutes  the  assumption  that  the  figure  is  a priest,  for  it 
undoubtedly  represents  a triad  of  divinities.  I have  already  explained  the  figure  as  Eubouleus  in  Arch.  Anz. 
1889,  p.  47  ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2185. 

c Tischbein,  i.  39  \Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1891,  p.  12  eq. 

' Relief  in  the  Museum  at  Eleusis  (Photogr.  in  German  Ath.  Institute,  Eleusis,  29). 

8 Cf.  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  147.  Even  after  J.  P.  Meier’s  remarks  in  the  Jalirb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  209,  I still 
think  this  hypothesis  the  most  likely.  The  side  wall  of  the  aedicula  probably  joined  on  to  the  left  shoulder,  as  is 
shown  by  the  perpendicular  contact-surface.  The  left  shoulder  was  free.  Perhaps  there  was  a second  bust  on  the 
left  side  of  this  one,  which  would  explain  the  turn  of  the  head  of  Eubouleus. 


PRAXITELES 


334 


But  replicas  of  the  Praxitelean  head  itself  have  been  found  in  Eleusis.  The 
only  complete  one,  now  in  the  Museum  at  Athens,1  is  neither  poor  nor  late,  but  is 
evidently  only  a copy  from  the  Praxitelean  original  which  has  been  preserved  to  us. 
In  the  original  we  can  trace  the  master’s  touch,  in  the  copy  we  only  get  a spiritless 
and  tame  imitation.  This  contrast  is  specially  noticeable  in  the  hair.  The  amazing 
mastery  of  the  Praxitelean  head  lies  in  the  indefiniteness  of  the  hair,  in  its  curling 
disarray  and  shimmering  undulations,  qualities  which  the  copyist  was  powerless  to 
catch,  although  he  imitated  the  technique  of  the  drill.  In  the  Eleusinian  copy, 
just  as  in  the  Roman,  the  lines  of  the  hair  are  arranged  more  according  to  scheme 
and  rule,  a process  in  which  all  the  original  charm  is  lost.  So,  too,  the  fresh  untram- 
melled hair  of  the  superb  Skopasian  head  from  the  south  slope  of  the  Akropolis 2 
lost  all  spontaneity  in  the  Roman  copy.  The  existence  of  replicas  at  Eleusis 
affords  a proof  of  the  canonical  value  attached  to  the  original,  by  showing  that 
whoever  in  later  times  desired  to  set  up  an  image  of  Euboulcus  at  Eleusis  only 
required  to  have  a copy  made  of  the  head  by  Praxiteles. 

The  Eubouleus  presumably  belongs,  like  the  ‘ Satyr  at  rest,’  to  the  artist’s  middle 
period.  In  it  he  made  free  use  of  the  drill — as  he  must  have  done  in  the  original  of  the 
Satyr — to  make  the  hair  look  loose  and  lifelike.  Two  other  technical  peculiarities 
show  that  it  is  somewhat  earlier  than  the  Hermes  : the  lower  eyelid  is  not  treated 
with  the  characteristic  delicacy,3 4  but  its  hard  and  clearly  marked  outline  is  more  like 
what  we  notice  in  the  original  heads  attributed  to  Skopas.  Further,  the  corners  of 
the  mouth  are  not  as  in  the  Hermes  worked  with  the  drill,  but,  like  the  Skopasian 
heads  (where  the  drill  is  not  employed  even  for  the  hair),  they  show  no  traces  of 
its  use.  Since  Praxiteles  did  not  employ  all  the  technical  resources  of  his  later 
style  in  the  Eubouleus,  it  follows  that  the  work  must  be  earlier  than  the  Hermes. 
We  are  actually  watching  the  growth  of  that  refinement  in  the  working  of  marble 
which  distinguishes  Praxiteles  even  from  Skopas. 

There  is  a Roman  copy  of  a superb  head  (Fig.  143)  4 so  like  Praxitelean  work, 
and  more  especially  the  Eubouleus,  that  we  must  needs  be  referred  to  an  original 
of  the  master.  The  breadth  of  the  full  delicate  face,  the  cut  of  the  eyes,  the  chin 
with  the  shallow  dimple,  and  the  broad  fleshy  neck  resemble  the  Eubouleus  ; so  does 
the  thick  loose  hair,  which  is  worked  with  the  drill,  and  was  of  course  still  more 
effective  in  the  original.  The  two  heads,  however,  also  offer  marked  contrasts  to  one 
another.  The  short  locks  are  parted  in  the  middle  and  fall  evenly  and  simply  down 
on  either  side  of  the  face,  but  not  over  the  forehead.  The  head  is  thrust  somewhat 
forward,  and  the  expression  is  not  in  the  slightest  dreamy  ; rather  is  it  energetic  and 
expectant.  The  personage  is  more  youthful  than  the  Eubouleus,  and  the  forehead  is 
smoother  ; but  the  way  of  wearing  the  hair  and  the  muscular  neck  show  without 
a doubt  that  the  head  is  male. 

I think  that  no  name  seems  to  fit  this  head  so  well  as  Triptolemos,  the  brother  of 
Eubouleus,  whom  Praxiteles  had,  according  to  Pliny,  represented  in  a group  ( Flora , 
Triptolemus , Ceres  in  hortis  Servi/ianis).  A comparison  of  the  Triptolemos  on  the 

1 Ath.  Mitth.  xvi.  Taf.  2.  (The  other  replica  is  only  a fragment.)  The  eyes  were  inserted;  this  was 
enough  to  make  the  Praxitelean  refinement  in  the  rendering  of  the  eye  impossible.  Kern  claims  the  head  of  a 
statue  in  Rome  [ioc.  cit.  Taf.  i)  as  a repetition  of  the  same  type,  but  the  resemblance  is  only  general.  The  sym- 
metric fall  of  curls  over  the  forehead,  characteristic  of  an  under-world  god,  is  absent. 

2 Ath.  Mitth.  i.  Taf.  13,  14;  Skulpt.  Berlin,  610;  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  p.  216. 

3 Cf.  Graf,  in  Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  204. 

4 Pal.  Pitti,  Dtitschke,  ii.  27.  Nose  and  lips  restored.  Length  of  face  0U7.  Arndt  and  Amelung  also 
thought  of  Praxiteles  as  the  author. 


Fig.  143. — Head  in  Pal.  Pitti  (Florence). 


PRAXITELES 


336 


great  Eleusinian  relief,1  which  belongs  to  the  period  and  the  school  of  Pheidias,  shows 
that  his  hair  was  parted  in  the  middle  and  fell  on  either  side,  and  that  even  the 
attitude  and  expression  of  that  head  (after  making  all  due  allowance  for  difference  of 
style)  are  extraordinarily  like  this  one.  Praxiteles  must  have  taken  that  older  type 
of  Triptolemos  as  the  basis  of  his  creation. 

The  Sauroktonos  can  be  but  very  slightly  older  than  the  Hermes.2  The  body 
comes  appreciably  nearer  to  it  than  did  the  ‘ Satyr  at  rest.’  The  rich  round  modelling 
of  the  abdominal  region  and  the  rendering  of  the  navel  with  a fold  of  skin  above  it 
are  already  quite  in  the  style  of  the  Hermes,  and  absolutely  different  from  the 
Satyr  pouring  wine  and  the  Eros  ; though  the  chest  with  its  quiet  broad  surfaces 
passes  without  much  transition  into  the  sides,  still  somewhat  after  the  older 
method.  The  copies  do  not  allow  us  to  judge  of  the  subtler  beauties  of  the  head  ; 
the  face  with  its  soft  setting  of  hair  recalls  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos  ; yet  the 
forehead  broadens  considerably  at  the  base  in  order  to  characterize  Apollo,  in 
accordance  with  a type  elaborated,  as  we  have  already  seen,  as  early  as  the  fifth 
century  (p.  194). 

The  statue  possesses  a wonderful  charm,  which  is  due  entirely  to  the  attitude,  on 
which  the  artist  has  expended  all  his  skill.  It  would  have  been  more  natural  had  the 
right  hand  with  the  arrow  been  nearer  to  the  object  aimed  at,  but  this  would  have 
spoilt  the  beautiful  front  view  of  the  body. 

The  true  interpretation  of  the  attitude  seems  to  lie  about  midway  between 
the  fluctuating  theories  which  have  been  propounded  on  the  subject — i.e.  the 
action  is  a playful  one  without  any  mantic  meaning,  yet  the  lizard  was  probably 
an  attribute  of  Apollo,  in  the  ritual  for  which  this  statue  was  made  ; and  the 
Sauroktonos  is  playing  with  a lizard,  just  as  the  Smintheus  of  Skopas  was  playing 
with  a mouse. 

The  Eros  of  Parion,  which  as  I had  already  shown  from  coins3  was  leaning  on  his 
left  arm,  has  been  happily  identified  4 in  the  so-called  ‘ Genius  Borghese  ’ in  the  Louvre.5 
This  statue  is  of  course  a very  poor  copy,  but  it  enables  us  to  assign  to  the  original 
its  place  in  the  Praxitelean  series.  The  hair  with  the  loop  tied  up  above  the  ears  is 
very  like  the  Sauroktonos  ; yet  the  little  knot  of  hair  over  the  forehead,  and  the 
symmetrical  division  of  the  locks  just  at  that  spot,  recall  the  Thespian  Eros.  How- 
ever, even  the  chest  no  longer  shows  any  trace  of  the  earlier  type,  for  it  is  as  softly 
rounded  in  every  direction  as  that  of  the  Hermes.  There  is  a wide  gap  between  it 
and  the  master’s  earlier  statues  of  Eros.  This  difference  is  not  merely  a difference 
of  form  but  also  one  of  expression.  The  whole  effect  conveyed  by  every  detail 
of  attitude,  form,  and  face  is  soft  and  round,  and  the  feeling  excited  in  us  by  this 
‘ Genius’  is  one  of  voluptuous  delight.6  On  the  other  hand,  the  Thespian  Eros,  with 

1 I consider  Graf’s  attempt  ( Ath . llitth.  xv.  36  seq.)  to  see  in  this  relief  Boeotio-Peloponnesian  style  to  be 
completely  mistaken. 

2 Replicas,  Overbeck,  Apollon,  235  seq.  In  judging  of  the  style  we  should  study  the  marble  copies  executed 
on  the  scale  of  the  original,  not  the  reduced  and  less  faithful  Albani  bronze  (whose  Roman  origin  is  sufficiently 
proved  by  the  technique,  especially  by  the  inlaid  band  of  silver). 

2 Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1358. 

4 By  Benndorf  in  Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch.  1886,  p.  74. 

5 Frohner,  Not.  326.  Photo,  ed.  Giraudon,  1201.  So-called  Thasian  marble.  The  connexion  between 
the  figure  and  the  antique  stem  and  drapery  is  new  ; the  stem  probably  stood  rather  nearer.  The  head  is  un- 
broken. The  workmanship  is  poor,  flat,  and  spiritless,  yet  the  beauty  of  the  original  shines  through.  The  motive 
of  the  Eros  of  Parion  recurs  on  a Greek  mirror  and  gem  (cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1359). 

Winckelmann  (Hist,  of  Art,  bk.  v.  ch.  1,  § 12  = tr.  Lodge,  vol.  i.  p.  325)  felt  deeply  the  beauty  of  the 
work.  In  saying  that  it  was  ‘ fashioned  after  the  beauty  of  angels’  he  was  evidently  influenced  by  the  voluptuous 
angel  of  seventeenth-  and  eighteenth-century  art. 


HERMES— APOLLO— DIONYSOS 


337 


its  well-knit  forms,  is  still  under  the  spell  of  the  constrained  rhythm  of  Peloponnesian 
creations,1  and  seems  consumed  with  repressed  longing. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  that  period  of  the  artist’s  life  to  which  the  Olympian 
Hermes  belongs.  Many  monuments  can  be  grouped  about  this  statue,  but  only  the 
more  important  need  be  mentioned  here.  First  of  all  comes  an  ‘Apollo  at  rest’  with 
his  right  arm  over  his  head — a famous  work,  to  judge  by  the  many  copies  and  later 
adaptations.2  Both  the  attitude  and  figure  are  extraordinarily  like  the  Hermes,  and 
the  spirit  of  the  work  is  so  thoroughly  Praxitelean  in  the  quiet  beauty  of  its  flowing 
lines,  so  radically  different  from  the  work  of  Skopas  for  instance,3  that  we  naturally 
assign  it  to  the  master  of  the  Hermes.  The  position  of  the  head  is  like  that  of 
the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos  ; the  eyes  gaze  into  the  distance,  and  even  the  features 
show  such  a family  likeness  to  the  Aphrodite  that  the  authorship  of  Praxiteles 
cannot  be  doubted.  The  hair  is  a fresh  example  of  the  master’s  skill  in  inventing 
rich  and  characteristic  coiffures.  The  god  is  only  lightly  leaning  on  his  left  arm,  for 
the  left  leg  is  not  absolutely  free  and  drawn  behind  the  other  as  in  the  Hermes,  but 
is  planted  flat  on  the  ground,  so  as  to  give  the  figure  more  dignity  of  bearing. 

A Dionysos,  of  which  copies  likewise  exist,  corresponds  so  closely  to  this 4 
Apollo  that  it  must  be  the  work  of  the  same  artist.  The  attitude  and  the  bodily 
forms  are  identical  ; on  the  left  shoulder  a nebris  is  knotted,  and  clings  closely  and 
softly  to  the  figure  so  as  to  reveal  its  shape.  The  bacchic  mitra  is  fastened  into  the 
hair,  which  falls  in  long  curls  over  the  shoulders.  The  type  of  face  also,  with  the  far-off 
look,  is  very  like  the  Apollo,  though  it  is  modified  to  characterize  a more  effeminate, 
sensuous  nature. 

There  is  another  Dionysos  at  Madrid,5  which  is  certainly  Praxitelean,  and  belongs 

1 I may  just  mention  at  the  close  of  this  section  that  a series  of  Kanephoroi  is  preserved  to  us  as  Caryatids 
in  copies  which  must  go  back  to  originals  from  the  circle  of  Skopas  and  Praxiteles.  Three  types  may  be  dis- 
tinguished : ( a ) Villa  Albani,  725  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1557  ; Ifelbig,  Museums,  837  ; Clarac,  444,  814  B ; 
left  supporting  leg,  head  related  to  Knidian  Aphrodite.  A replica  without  head  in  Athens,  found  near  the  Metro- 
politan Church,  (b)  Villa  Albani,  628;  Friederichs-Wolters,  1556;  Ilelbig,  834;  Clarac,  444,  814.  Rests  on 
left  leg.  Hair  in  furrows.  Replica  in  Athens  found  with  replica  of  a.  (r)  British  Museum,  Newton,  Guide  Graeco- 
Rom.  Sculpt.  1,  126;  Clarac,  444,  813.  Rests  on  right  leg.  Hair  in  furrows.  The  types  are  magnificent  and 
worthy  of  the  greatest  artists.  The  replicas  in  Athens  were  perhaps  made  to  replace  the  originals  which  the  Romans 
took  away.  According  to  a suggestion  kindly  communicated  to  me  by  Bulle,  these  types  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
Triopian  sanctuary  of  the  Chthonic  divinities  near  Knidos.  This  would  answer  admirably  to  our  assumption  of  a 
Praxitelean  origin,  for  Praxiteles  worked  in  Knidos.  There  was  a Kanephora  by  Skopas  in  Asini  Monumentis  ; 
the  Kanephora  of  Praxiteles,  Plin.  xxxiv.  69,  is,  however,  only  a conjecture,  the  reading  oporan  of  the  cod. 
Riccardianus  being  very  probably  the  correct  one.  [Cf.  now  Bulk’s  article,  Rom.  Rlitth.  ix.  p.  134  sqq.  His 
own  view  is  that  the  Roman  statues  belonged  to  a sanctuary  of  the  Triopian  Demeter  on  the  Via  Appia 
dedicated  by  Herodes  Atticus  in  memory  of  Regilla,  and  that  the  Athenian  copies  possibly  belonged  to  the 
sanctuary  of  Serapis  and  Isis,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Metropolitan  church.  Neither  series  stood  free, 
according  to  Bulle,  but  were  placed  pillar-wise  against  a wall. — E.  S.] 

2 For  the  type  and  its  Praxitelean  origin  see  my  Satyr  von  Pergamon,  p.  21,  A,  2 ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  460 — 

462  ; Samml.  Sabouroff,  to  Taf.  36.  Collection  of  replicas  (including  some  wrong  material),  Overbeck,  Apollon, 
209  seq.  Good  copies  are  Berlin  44  and  512  ; Louvre,  Frohner,  75,  76,  and  a torso,  No.  3013  ; a torso  in  Palazzo 
Mattei.  A good  copy  of  the  head  is  falsely  placed  on  a seated  statue  of  Apollo  in  the  Museo  Boncompagni- 
Ludovisi  (Helbig,  Museums,  877).  Schreiber  ( V.  Ltid.  116)  wrongly  explains  it  as  modern;  another  copy  is 
in  the  Conservat.  Pal.  Salone,,  No.  31,  placed  on  a female  statue.  Two  replicas  of  the  head  in  the  Brit.  Mus., 
Friederichs-Wolters,  1292 — 93.  One  in  the  Coll.  Barracco  ( Coll . B.  FI.  59,  59  a).  Kalkmann,  misled  by  his 
measurements  {Prop.  d.  Gesichts,  p.  62),  places  this  Apollo  in  the  fifth  century,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  calls  a 
late  Roman  copyist’s  modification  (in  the  Brit.  Mus.  from  Kyrene)  Praxitelean  ! Cf.  my  remarks  in  the  Berl. 
Philol.  Wochenschrift,  1894,  p.  109.  3 Birch  and  Wolters,  loc.  cit.,  thought  of  Skopas. 

* The  so-called  Bacchus  de  Versailles  in  the  Louvre,  Frohner,  Notice,  218;  photo,  eel.  Giraudon,  1189. 
Well  preserved,  with  head.  Ibid.  Frohner,  216. 

5 Friederichs-Wolters,  1485.  I know  no  replicas  ; the  bronze  Dionysos  published  by  Milani  (Museo  Ital. 
iii.  752  seq. ) as  Praxitelean  has  no  connexion  with  Praxiteles.  Cf.  infra,  p.  353. 


X x 


PRAXITELES 


to  the  same  period  of  the  artist’s  life.  In  conception  it  most  resembles  the  Eros  of 
Parion.  The  god  is  resting  his  arm  on  an  archaic  terminal  figure. 

But  belonging  to  this  later  period  there  are  also  figures  standing  free  without 
any  support.  First  of  all  comes,  as  was  noticed  immediately  on  the  discovery 
of  the  Olympian  Hermes,  the  so-called  Antinous  (Hermes)  of  the  Belvedere.1 
The  head  and  the  bodily  forms,  even  down  to  minute  details  like  the  hair  over  the 
forehead,  correspond  most  closely  to  the  Olympian  statue.  Still  there  are  differences 
which  cause  one  to  suspect  that  this  work  is  a still  later  development  of  the 
Praxitelean  manner,  and  may  be  by  one  of  his  sons  ; these  differences  are  the 
modelling  of  the  chest,  the  greater  curve  of  the  hips,  and  the  smallness  of  the  head, 
which  however  seems  to  have  lacked  the  ideal  grace  and  refinement  of  the  Olympian 
Hermes.  The  right  arm  is  placed  on  the  hip — an  attitude  often  found  in  statues  by 
Skopas  ; here  however  it  assumes  a different  character.  Skopas  made  it  express 
fierce  impatience  and  restlessness,  but  here  it  conveys  an  idea  of  graceful  nonchalance. 
Compare  for  instance  the  Meleager  of  Skopas.  It  is  untrue  to  say  that  the  difference 
arises  from  the  subject-matter  ; for  the  Hermes  belonging  to  the  earlier  works  of 
Skopas  was,  as  we  saw,  represented  in  like  unrest  (Fig.  129).  This  again  is  a point 
in  which  Fysippos  is  linked  to  Skopas;  a beautiful  bronze  statuette  from  Athens2 
gives  us  a Hermes  of  purest  Eysippian  style,  in  the  swinging  posture  of  the 
Apoxyomenos,  the  left  arm  placed  behind  the  back,  the  right  holding  the  kerykeion 
sideways,  the  head  jerked  impatiently  to  one  side.  Plow  totally  different  is  the 
thoughtful,  quiet  Praxitelean  figure  ! 

Of  another  Praxitelean  Apollo3  we  get  at  least  a glimpse  in  a torso  (supra, 
Plate  XV.)  Tike  the  Belvedere  Hermes,  he  rests  full  on  the  right  leg,  with  the  hip 
curved  outwards,  and  does  not  lean  against  any  support  ; the  right  arm  is  raised  to 
feel  for  the  quiver  at  his  back.  The  head  is  turned  towards  the  side  of  the  free  leg. 
The  contours  agree  with  those  of  the  ‘ Apollo  at  rest  ’ and  the  Hermes  of  Olympia, 
but  they  are  somewhat  softer. 

There  is  another  statue,  a Hermes  (Fig.  144), 4 which  is  particularly  interesting- 
owing  to  the  novelty  and  originality  of  the  motive.  The  artist  has  for  once  broken 
through  his  practice  of  only  representing  figures  at  rest,  and  has  attempted  some- 
thing more  vigorous.  Even  here  however  the  master’s  bent  is  unmistakable,  for  the 
design  is  a model  of  perfectly  rounded  beauty  and  internal  repose. 

Besides  a full-sized  copy  in  Florence,  there  are  two  statuettes,  which  however 
are  not  quite  exact  in  details.5  The  attitude  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  ‘Apollo  at 
rest  ’ and  of  the  Dionysos,  except  that  there  is  no  support  for  the  left  arm.  However, 

1 Treu,  Hermes  mit  dem  Dionysosknaben  (1878),  p.  8 seq.  Cf.  Friederichs-Wolters,  121S — 20;  Ilelbig, 
Museums,  145.  The  replica  from  Andros  is  not  faithful  stylistically,  but  mixes  in  Lysippian  elements  ; the  Roman 
copies  are  more  faithful.  A good  one  in  the  Lansdowne  Collection  (Michaelis,  Anc.  Sculpt,  p.  454,  65),  and  one 
in  the  Pal.  Vecchio  in  Florence  (Diitschke,  ii.  51 1 ; the  head  antique,  but  foreign).  Amelung  (Florentiner 
Antiken,  p.  37)  mentions  replicas  of  the  head. 

2 Berlin,  Inv.  6305  ; cf.  supra,  p.  300.  The  bronze  corresponds  very  closely  with  the  Apoxyomenos  in 
proportions  and  details  of  form.  It  appears  to  be  an  original  of  the  same  school. 

::  In  Villa  Medici,  Matz-Duhn,  215.  This  is  the  torso  on  which  has  been  placed  the  beautiful  Meleager 
head  published  in  Ant.  Dcnkm.  i.  Taf.  40. 

4 Uffizi,  Diitschke,  98  ; Gall,  di  Firenze,  Ser.  4,  135  ; Clarac,  666  C,  1512  A.  Cf.  Arch.  Aus.  18S9,  147. 
The  drawing  by  Heemskerk,  mentioned  by  Michaelis,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  vi.  p.  140,  26,  C,  seems  to  represent  this 
statue.  The  left  arm  and  the  beginning  of  the  right  upper  arm  are  antique  ; the  kerykeion  is  restored  ; head 
unbroken  ; nose,  lips,  and  edge  of  petasos  restored  ; legs,  wings  on  feet,  and  plinth  are  antique. 

r’  a.  Marble  statuette,  Gall,  dei  Candelabri,  17  ; only  the  torso  antique  ; the  chlamys  is  fastened  on  the  right 
shoulder,  b.  Bronze  statuette  in  Naples,  No.  5208.  No  chlamys  ; the  right  hand,  bent  and  empty,  seems  to 
grasp  the  hat.  The  left  hand  is  held  as  in  the  Florentine  statue.  No  kerykeion. 


HERMES 


339 


since  in  those  other  two  statues  the  support  is  almost  without  influence  upon  the 
position  of  the  body,  seeing  that  the  left  foot  is  planted  flat  to  the  front,  while  the 
left  arm  is  only  slightly  supported,  the  actual  difference  is  very  slight.  The  close 
connexion  of  the  Uffizi  Hermes  with  the  Apollo,  the  Dionysos,  and  the  Olympian 
Hermes  is  proved  above  all  by  the  correspondence  of  the  bodily  forms,  somewhat 


Fig.  144. — Hermes  in  the  Uffizi. 


hard  and  dry  though  the  copyist’s  work  was.  In  this  case  too  the  right  arm  is  raised  ; 
unfortunately  only  the  stump  is  left  in  the  large  statue,  but  the  bronze  statuette 
shows  that  the  hand  was  empty.  The  left  one  holds  a kerykeion  like  the 
Belvedere  and  the  Olympian  Hermes  ; the  chlamys  falls  over  the  arm  as  in  the 
latter,  an  arrangement  which  we  sometimes  find  on  fourth-century  Attic  grave-reliefs. 


340 


PRAXITELES 


The  head  reminds  us  of  the  ‘ Satyr  at  rest  ’ and  of  the  Eubouleus,  for  the  hair  grows 
thick  and  full  on  the  crown  of  the  head,  then  falls  away  on  either  side  of  the  face 
and  there  is  the  same  breadth  of  forehead,  while  face  and  neck  agree  completely. 
There  are  traces  of  a growth  of  beard  on  the  cheeks  — he  is  irpwTov  vi npuj-r???, 
as  Homer  represents  him  (II.  xxiv.  38). 

In  fact,  the  whole  conception  is  Homeric — this  Hermes  is  no  longer  the  youth 
trained  in  the  palaestra,  with  close  shorn  hair  and  ephcbic  type  of  face  ; he  is  a free 

child  of  nature,  a young 
man  in  the  prime  of  his 
strength  and  beauty,  a 
ruler’s  son,  Kovpw  alaup,vp- 
Tppt  Soikoos,  a son  of  Zeus, 
as  we  are  reminded  by  the 
typical  growth  of  the  hair. 
I he  Hermes  is  the  messen- 
ger between  gods  and  men, 
rejoicing  in  his  strength  as 
he  lifts  his  arm  and  looks 
upwards,  and  we  feel  that 
his  winged  feet  are  about 
to  bear  him  and  his  mes- 
sage to  Olympos. 

This  Hermes  recalls 
the  Eros  described  by 
Kallistratos,  as  about  to 
cleave  the  air  with  his 
wings.  I believe  I have 
discovered  a reproduction 
of  this  statue  in  a small 
bronze,1  which  shows  Eros 
with  both  arms  raised  pre- 
paring to  soar  upward. 
This  audacious  conception 
would  of  course  belong  to 
the  artist’s  later  period. 

In  close  connexion 

with  this  Florentine  Hermes  comes  a statue  of  Herakles  in  the  Villa  Albani  (Fig- 
145).2  The  attitude  is  identical,  and  the  statue  has  the  typical  late  Praxitelean 
forms.  The  hero  holds  his  club  in  the  left  hand  just  as  the  Hermes  holds  his 
kcrykeion,  and  the  right  hand  too  is  upraised  ; the  restorer  has  put  a cup  into  it, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  it  actually  once  held  a drinking-vessel.  Unfortu- 
nately a portion  of  the  neck  is  new,  but  the  head  itself  is  genuine,  and  its  turn 
to  the  right  is  shown  by  what  remains  of  the  neck  to  be  accurate.  The  paws 
of  the  lion -skin  are  knotted  together  on  the  right  shoulder  so  as  to  produce 


Fig.  145. — Herakles  in  Villa  Albani. 


1 Jahrb.  d.  Ver.f.  Alterth.-Fr.  im  Rheinland,  Heft  90,  p.  61  sqq.  Taf.  3,  3.  Cf.  p.  314,  note  1. 

2 Clarac,  804  B,  2007  A ; Helbig,  Museums,  840.  The  front  of  the  right  leg  above  the  knee,  the  front  of  the 
foot,  the  left  right  arm  (except  at  the  shoulder,  where  sufficient  remains  to  show  that  the  arm  was  raised),  the  left 
hand,  and  most  of  the  club,  except  a small  piece  in  the  middle,  are  restored.  The  neck  is  partly  restored.  The 
body  has  suffered  much  from  exposure.  The  support  with  the  quiver  is  antique.  Emil  Braun  ( Ruinen  und 
Museen,  p.  706  set/.)  well  appreciated  this  little-known  statue. 


HERAKLES 


341 


the  effect  of  a chlamys,  and  the.  head  of  the  animal  falls  over  the  breast; 
this  is  an  innovation,  for  it  is  usually  either  drawn  over  the  hero’s  head  or  hangs 
over  his  arm.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  draping  of  the  skin, 
with  the  head  in  front,  is  dictated  by  the  same  taste  as  the  panther-skin  of  the  ‘ Satyr 
at  rest.’  All  these  points  justify  us  in  assigning  this  work  also  to  Praxiteles. 
Like  the  Hermes  of  the  Florentine  statue,  Herakles  is  gazing  up  brightly  and  cheer- 
fully, his  victories  won.1  He  is  the  hero,  who  by  sheer  prowess  has  attained 
Olympos,  and  with  conscious  pride 
looks  upwards  to  the  heaven  where 
eternal  youth  and  happiness  await 
him.  How  different  to  that  rest- 
less hero  thirsting  for  new  feats 
whom  Skopas  conceived  ! 

A well-known  statue  in  the 
Museo  Chairamonti  (Fig.  146) 2 is 
a modified  replica  of  the  one  in 
the  Villa  Albani  ; the  bodily  forms 
are  considerably  altered  ; a Per- 
gamcnc  layer  has  been  superadded 
to  the  Praxitclean  substratum. 

The  superficial  realism,  the  turgid 
manner  of  the  Pergamenes,  has 
obscured  the  beautiful  simplicity 
of  the  original  design  ; even  the 
lion-skin  has  become  more  effect- 
ive and  pathetic.  The  attitude  is 
changed — the  club  is  transferred 
to  the  right  hand,  and  held  down, 
not  up,  and  therefore  the  head  is 
less  raised.  The  child  Telephos, 
about  whom  his  father  is  but  little 
concerned,  is  awkwardly  adjusted 

on  the  left  arm.  The  addition  of  FlG-  ^.-Herakles  with  Telephos  (Mus.  Chiaramonti). 

Telephos  shows  that  we  have  to 

do  with  a Pergamene  adaptation — that  is  to  say,  with  a Roman  copy  of  such  an 
adaptation.3 

The  head  of  the  statue  (Fig.  147,  from  a cast)  shows,  as  compared  with  the 
Albani  head,  some  traces  of  later  modification,  though  mainly  in  externals  ; the  beard 
is  less  full  and  deeply  undercut,  after  the  Pergamene  fashion,  and  the  twisted 
fillet  is  an  addition.  However,  in  its  main  lines  the  head  does  not  differ 


1 A bearded  Herakles,  looking  up,  but  more  pathetic  than  the  Albani  one,  is  in  Dresden  (Augusteum, 
Taf.  91);  skin  over  the  head;  in  bodily  forms  rather  older  than  the  Albani  statue.  Beardless  Herakles 
(excellent)  with  the  same  motive  in  the  Coll.  Jacobsen  in  Copenhagen  (No.  1050).  The  attitude  and  build 
of  the  body  are  very  similar  to  the  Apoxyomenos  of  Lysippos,  but  the  head  is  like  the  Skopasian  type.  One 
hesitates  whether  to  call  Lysippos  or  Skopas  the  author.  The  composition  is  far  more  pathetic  and  restless 
than  the  Praxitelean. 

2 No.  636.  Helbig,  Museums,  113.  Very  well  preserved.  Unimportant  restorations.  The  upper  end  of  the 
club  with  the  right  hand  is  antique.  Head  unbroken,  only  the  point  of  the  nose  restored.  I can  see  absolutely 
no  grounds  for  connecting  the  statue  with  the  Munich  Diomede,  as  Brunn  has  done  ( Bciyr . Sitzungsber. 
1892,  662). 

3 For  Telephos  with  Herakles,  cf.  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  2246  seq. 


342 


PRAXITELES 


appreciably  from  the  Albani  Herakles,  and  its  presupposed  Praxitelean  model  ; for 
instance,  it  is  quite  uninfluenced  by  the  exaggerated  Lysippian  ideal  of  Herakles. 
Therefore  we  may  believe  that  the  main  points  of  the  Herakles  of  Praxiteles  are 
faithfully  reproduced  in  the  Chiaramonti  head.  For  even  the  system  of  forms 
corresponds  throughout  with  the  Hermes  of  Olympia  ; the  modelling  of  the  forehead 
is  strikingly  similar,  though  rather  more  powerful  ; further,  the  eyes  and  their 
surrounding  parts,  the  ancient  portion  of  the  nose  and  the  profile  completely 
correspond.  It  is  only  in  details,  like  the  hair  and  the  lower  eyelid,  that  those 
differences  of  treatment  appear  which  always  distinguish  a copyist’s  work  from  an 
original. 

In  presence  of  this  profoundly  felt  conception  of  Herakles,  undoubtedly  the 
most  beautiful  image  of  the  hero  that  exists  beside  the  beardless  Skopasian  type, 


Fig.  147. — Head  of  Herakles  Chiaramonti. 


many  will  feel  reminded  of  another  famous  ancient  type — the  ' Zeus  of  Otricoli.’ 
There  is  an  undoubted  resemblance  in  the  system  of  forms,  but  the  likeness 
is  due  to  their  being  not  the  work  of  one  master  but  of  one  development  and 
age.  It  has  recently  been  more  than  once  suggested  that  this  famous  head  is  a 
specimen  of  the  work  of  the  second  Attic  school,  and  the  suggestion  is  correct.1  It 
is  now  possible  to  conjecture  what  the  statue  which  belonged  to  this  head  was 
like.  At  Constantinople  there  is  a bronze  statue  of  Zeus  (one  third  life-size)2  whose 
head  exactly  reproduces  the  Otricoli  type.  The  powerful  nude  figure  has  nothing 
Lysippian  about  it,  and  is  connected  rather  with  the  Praxitelean  manner.  The  figure 
is  in  the  walking  motive,  with  all  the  weight  thrown  on  the  right  leg,  and  the  left 


1 Loschke,  Jalirb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Alterth.-Fr.  im  Rheinland,  Heft  88,  p.  266  ; Helbig,  Museums,  294. 

2 Found  at  Janina. — B.  C.H.  1885,  PI.  14. 


THE  PETWORTH  APHRODITE 


343 


hand  raised  aloft.  According  to  the  marks  on  the  basis,  this  was  precisely  the 
attitude  of  the  six  Zanes  which  the  Athenians  erected  at  Olympia  (B.C.  332). 
These  Zanes  must  assuredly  have  resembled  the  Constantinople  figure  in  style  as 
well  as  in  motive,  and  the  Otricoli  mask  may  very  possibly  go  back  to  one  of 
them. 

We  have  reserved  for  the  end  a very  beautiful  and  interesting  work.  This  is, 
as  I hope  to  be  able  to  prove,  a real  original  by  Praxiteles  himself,  a head  of  his 
favourite  goddess  Aphrodite,  belonging  to  his  later  period  (Plate  XVII.  and  Fig. 
148).  The  head,  which  belongs  to  Lord  Leconfield,  was  till  lately  in  the  Petworth 
collection,  but  has  now  been  removed  to  the  owner’s  London  house. 

This  superb  life-size  head  1 was  found  last  century.  When  I saw  it  for  the  first 
time  in  1888  2 I was  absolutely  enraptured  with  its  beauty.  Unfortunately  the  head  is 
somewhat  damaged,  the  nose  and  part  of  the  upper  lip  being  restored,  and,  worse  than 
this,  the  whole  face,  except  for  a few  small  portions,  having  been  rubbed  smooth,  so 
that  the  freshness  of  the  ancient  surface  is  lost.  The  corners  of  the  mouth  and  the 
adjacent  parts  seem  to  have  suffered  most  from  the  polishing  process,  hence  we  may 
suppose  that  the  drill-marks  in  the  mouth  were  originally  less  conspicuous  than  they 
are  now.  Still,  it  is  only  the  last  delicate  touches  that  have  disappeared,  and  in  all 
essentials  the  head  is  well  preserved.  Even  the  antique  polish  survives  uninjured  in 
some  parts.  Originally  the  whole  neck  was  polished,  but  the  hair  left  rough — the 
Hermes  of  Olympia  being  another  instance  of  the  same  method.  The  marble  is 
Parian,  of  that  fine  variety  known  as  ly chutes,  which  was  also  employed  for  the 
Hermes.  As  the  block  was  not  large  enough,  the  back  of  the  head  with  the  bunch 
of  hair  was  made  separately  and  joined  on.  The  join  is  straight,  and  so  neatly 
effected  that  it  is  to-day  as  good  as  ever,  and  must  have  been  quite  invisible  when 
the  hair  was  painted.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  Hermes  several  pieces — not, 
however,  parts  of  the  head — are  put  on  in  the  same  way,  with  straight  surfaces. 
The  head  is  intended  for  insertion  into  a statue,  which  we  may  suppose  was 
draped  and  made  of  marble  less  fine  in  quality. 

In  Specimens  of  Ancient  Sculpture  (i.  45,  46)  there  are  engravings  from  the  head. 
The  editor,  by  suggesting  that  it  may  be  ‘ a relique  of  the  parent  statue  from  which  so 
many  have  been  derived,’  shows  that  he  looked  upon  it  as  a Greek  original.  Ottfr. 
Muller  ( Handbnch , § 375,  3)  classes  it  among  the  older  and  more  majestic  types  of 
Aphrodite.3  It  seems  to  have  disappeared  from  the  collection  after  this.  Michaelis 
did  not  see  it,4  nor  did  Conze. 

We  are  now  able,  in  the  light  of  recent  discovery,  to  say  with  certainty  that  this 
is  a real  original  work  by  one  of  the  first  fourth-century  artists.  The  very  best  copies 
of  Praxitelean  heads — even,  for  example,  the  good  copy  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos 
in  a private  collection  in  Berlin5 — seem  lifeless  empty  masks  beside  it.  Nothing  is 
worthy  to  be  compared  with  it  except  an  original  such  as  the  Hermes  of  Olympia. 
There  is  only  one  period  of  Greek  art  to  which  the  hair  technique  of  this  head  can  be 
assigned,  and  that  is  the  period  of  Praxiteles.  I am  speaking  now  not  of  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  hair,  though  that  too  is  purely  Praxitelean  and  corresponds  in  essential 

1 Length  of  face,  0'2i  ; brow,  nose,  and  lower  part  of  the  face  each  measure  7 cm.  Distance  between 
outer  corners  of  the  eye,  crus  ; length  of  mouth  = o’c>56. 

2 Arch.  Anzeiger,  1890,  p.  164. 

8 Mentioned  again  by  Ottfr.  Muller  in  Kunstarch.  IVerken,  ii.  89. 

4 He  is  mistaken  in  mentioning  it  as  a replica  of  the  Venus  of  Medici  (Anc.  Marl),  p.  616,  No.  73),  from 
which  it  differs  in  size  and  pose. 

5 Antike  Denkm.  i.  41.  Cf.  p.  322,  note  3. 


344 


PRAXITELES 


features  with  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos,  but  of  the  manner  of  execution.  The  roots  of 
the  hair  are  rendered  with  marvellous  delicacy,  and  the  loose  waving  locks  produce  a 
wonderfully  natural  effect,  much  more  so  even  than  does  the  hair  of  the  fine 
Skopasian  head  from  the  southern  slope  of  the  Akropolis.  This  difference  in  effect  is 
due  to  the  use  of  the  drill,  which  was  not  employed  either  in  tho  Skopasian  work 
mentioned  above,  in  the  Iegea  heads,  or  in  any  other  original  sculptures  related  to 
Skopas.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  hair  of  the  Praxitelean  Hermes  and  of  the  Eubouleus 


Fig.  148. — Profile  of  Aphrodite  in  the  collection  of  Lord  Leconfield. 


is  very  deeply  drilled,  a process  to  which  is  partly  due  the  effect  of  life  and  vigour. 
The  same  method  has  been  employed  for  the  Aphrodite,  except  that  in  accordance 
with  the  different  character  of  the  hair  the  tool  has  been  used  more  sparingly,  but  the 
masterly  lightness  and  sureness  of  touch  are  the  same. 

The  hair  at  the  back  of  the  head  is,  as  in  the  Hermes,  indicated  rather  than 
worked  out.  A breakage  behind  each  ear  shows  perhaps  where  the  ends  of  a fillet 
hung  down,  as  in  the  Venus  of  Arles. 


1 Such  as  the  grave-relief  from  the  Ilissos  and  the  sculptures  of  the  Mausoleum.  Cf.  p.  309  seq. 


XVII. 


A phrodite. 

■ 

COLLECTION  OF  LORD  LECONFIELD. 


* * 


* 


V- 


IS- 


. ' 


. ■ . 


- 


; 


HflHH 


* 


* ’■  ' < • ' 3 

' ->  K 

. 


THE  PETWORTH  APHRODITE 


345 


The  whole  contour  of  the  face,  a long  oval  with  harmoniously  rounded  lines  and 
high  triangular  forehead,  is  at  once  recognized  as  Praxitelean  by  its  resemblance  to 
the  Knidian  Aphrodite.  The  round  skull  and  the  car,  with  its  long  lobe  well 
detached  from  the  cheek,  its  wide  opening,  and  the  narrow  fold  of  the  cartilage, 
exactly  resemble  the  Olympian  Hermes. 

But  the  master  hand  is  above  all  manifest  in  the  surpassing  beauty  of  the  eyes, 
which  are  a veritable  mirror  of  the  soul.  In  this  respect  too  only  the  Hermes 
can  stand  comparison.  In  both  we  find  the  same  rounding  of  the  ball  and  the 
same  treatment  of  the  lids,  which  are  not  sharply  detached  from  the  eyeballs  ; 
the  under  lid  is  peculiarly  characteristic  in  its  exquisite  delicacy,  being  almost 
imperceptibly  defined  against  the  ball  and  the  cheek  (cf.  p.  334).  It  is  drawn  slightly 
upwards,  thus  giving  to  the  eye  that  essentially  Aphrodisian  expression  which, 
from  the  evidence  of  copies,  we  already  know  to  have  been  one  of  the  charms  of  the 
Aphrodite  of  Knidos.  Imitators  of  Praxiteles  carried  this  tendency  to  excess — witness 
the  small  head  from  Olympia  (which  however,  being  only  a small,  slight  decorative 
work,  comes  under  another  category),  with  lower  lids  that  appear  almost  swollen.1 

Again,  the  mouth  of  the  Petworth  Aphrodite  finds  its  closest  analogy  in  that  of 
the  Hermes,  especially  in  the  delicate  transition  between  the  lips  and  the  surrounding 
surfaces,  which  is  an  unmistakable  mark  of  late  Praxitelean  art.  The  fascinating 
dimple  in  the  chin  reminds  us  further  of  the  Hermes,  while  the  Eubouleus  is  recalled 
not  only  by  this  charming  trait  but  more  especially  by  the  treatment  of  the  neck, 
the  flesh  of  which  is  rendered  with  the  softness  of  nature,  but  without  a trace  of  feeble- 
ness. It  is  so  real  and  living  that  we  are  almost  inclined  to  call  it  the  best  part 
of  the  bust. 

Although  we  can  bring  forward  no  literary  witness  to  help  in  the  identification 
of  this  head,  we  are,  I think,  completely  justified  on  technical  and  stylistic  grounds  in 
maintaining  that  it  is  a real  Greek  original  by  the  artist  of  the  Hermes.  We  cannot 
for  an  instant  suppose  that  Praxiteles  made  no  statues  of  Aphrodite  besides  those 
handed  down  " by  tradition,  or  that  Pliny  gives  even  an  approximately  complete 
list  of  the  many  works  by  the  master  which  Roman  spoliation  brought  to  Italy. 
From  the  carriage  of  the  head  and  the  slight  elevation  of  the  shoulder  I imagine 
that  the  right  arm  was  raised  and  supported.  The  statue  was  probably  draped,  and 
perhaps  it  lost  popularity  and  fell  out  of  notice  on  this  very  account.  Yet  it  seems 
to  have  been  copied  ; a head  in  the  Giardino  Boboli,  Florence,2  and  another  in 
Dresden,3  seem  to  be  replicas,  though  very  poor  ones,  of  the  Petworth  head. 

How  strong  was  the  influence  exercised  by  this  work  of  Praxiteles  on  his 
successors  is  shown  in  an  interesting  manner  by  the  Venus  of  Medici.  This  type  is 
merely  a translation  of  the  magnificent  Praxitelean  ideal  into  a languishing  and 
coquettish  form.  The  original  of  the  Medici  type  must  have  taken  an  amazingly 
firm  hold  of  popular  fancy,  to  judge  by  the  great  number  of  copies  and  variants  in 
existence.  I think  we  may  safely  assign  it  to  the  generation  after  Praxiteles,  perhaps 
to  his  sons  Kcphisodotos  and  Timarchos. 

In  proving  that  the  Petworth  head  is  an  original  we  have  at  the  same  time 
ascertained  its  date  : its  special  correspondence  with  the  Hermes  shows  that  it 
belongs  to  the  artist’s  later  period.  That  it  is  somewhat  later  than  the  Eubouleus 
(cf.  p.  334)  seems  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  shows  the  technical  peculiarities  which 

1 As  remarked  above  (p.  322),  this  little  head  is  not  a copy  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos. 

2 Diitschke,  ii.  80.  Has  been  wrongly  placed  on  a Hera  statue. 

:l  Wrongly  attached  to  the  so-called  Urania,  llettner,  No.  228  (Becker,  Angusteum,  Taf.  69). 

Y Y 


34^ 


PRAXITELES 


distinguish  the  Hermes  from  the  Eubouleus,  such  as  the  use  of  the  drill  for  the 
corners  of  the  mouth  and  the  1 liquid  ’ treatment  of  the  lower  eyelid.  Side  by  side 
with  the  youthful  Hermes  we  may  now  claim  to  have  an  original  female  head 
from  that  later  period  of  Praxiteles  in  which  his  chisel  had  attained  to  the  highest 
mastery. 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  suspend  our  inquiries  about  Praxiteles,  which 
only  profess  to  lay  down  the  main  lines  of  his  artistic  development,  and  to  turn  our 

[To  the  Hermes  of  Olympia,  the  one  authenticated  original  from  the  hand  of  Praxiteles,  and  to 
those  other  two  works  which  on  every  analogy  of  form,  of  style,  and  of  technique — the  Eubouleus 
(Plate  XVI.)  and  the  Leconfield  Aphrodite  (Plate  XVII.) — may  also  be  attributed  to  the  master,  I now 
wish  to  add  a fourth,  a head  in  the  British  Museum  (Plate  XVI II.),  known  as  the  ‘ Aberdeen  head,’  from 
the  collection  to  which  it  once  belonged.  The  stages  by  which  its  Praxitelean  authorship  has  come 
to  be  recognized  are  sufficiently  instructive  for  a brief  account  of  them  to  be  in  place  here.  The  head 
is  described  in  the  British  Museum  Guide  to  the  Graeco-Roman  Sculptures,  Part  II.  1876,  p.  44  (97), 
as  ‘ Head  of  young  Plercules  ’ — ‘ the  type  is  probably  one  which  prevailed  in  the  Macedonian  period.’ 
It  was  Dr.  Wolters  who,  in  1886,  had  the  signal  merit  of  redeeming  the  head  from  its  obscurity,  by 
adequately  publishing  it  in  the  Arch.  Jahrbuch , i.  PL  v.,  and  by  calling  attention  {ibid.  p.  54)  to  its 
Praxitelean  character.  It  may,  however,  be  added,  if  only  as  proof  of  the  rapid  progress  which 
archaeological  criticism  has  made  within  the  last  few  years,  that  in  1 886  Wolters  still  showed  that  same 
lack  of  discrimination  between  Skopas  and  Praxiteles  as,  to  Pliny’s  bewilderment,  did  the  ancient 
critics,  since  along  with  the  Aberdeen  head  he  published  as  equally  Praxitelean  the  fine  terminal  bust 
of  Heraldes  from  Genzano  which  Graf,  and  others  after  him  [supra,  p.  296),  have  since  shown  to  be  a 
copy  of  a Herakles  by  Skopas.  In  1891,  when  on  my  return  from  Greece  I first  turned  to  the  compara- 
tive study  of  form,  my  attention  was  attracted  by  the  essential  similarity  which  the  hair  and  the  eyes 
of  the  Aberdeen  head  offered  to  the  hair  and  eyes  of  the  Hermes.  In  the  course  of  my  demonstrations 
at  the  British  Museum  I pointed  to  the  head,  timidly  at  first,  as  to  an  original,  probably  by  Praxiteles. 
It  was  not  however  till,  for  lecturing  purposes,  I had  this  head  and  that  of  the  Hermes  photographed 
side  by  side  on  a lantern-slide  that  I was  able  definitely  to  make  up  my  mind.  When  the  two  heads, 
much  enlarged,  were  projected  on  the  screen,  the  agreement  between  them  of  form  and  technique  was 
exact  beyond  all  expectation ; the  indubitable  likeness  made  it  at  once  clear  to  me  that  the  alternative 
which  I had  at  times  contemplated — namely,  that  the  head  might  merely  be  a studio  work,  traceable 
to  a pupil  of  Praxiteles — must  be  abandoned  ; the  head  could  only  be  by  the  master  himself. 
Subsequently  I found  that  this  was  also  the  opinion  of  Professor  Klein  of  Prague  (whose  book  on 
Praxiteles  will,  I have  reason  to  believe,  throw  much  light  on  this  magnificent  work)  and  of  Professor 
Furtwangler,  at  whose  suggestion  I now  publish  the  head  afresh,  in  connexion  with  his  own 
researches.  Further,  Dr.  Kalkmann  (as  I lately  learnt  in  conversation  with  him)  inclines  to  the  same 
view. 

Turning  to  a comparative  analysis  of  the  forms,  it  is  at  once  obvious  that  though  the  hair  in  the 
Aberdeen  head  is  conceived  as  a lighter,  less  abundant  mass  than  in  the  Hermes,  the  form  of  the 
curls  that  play  about  the  forehead,  especially  in  the  region  of  the  temples,  is  identical  in  both  heads, 
while  on  the  top  it  is  treated  in  the  same  broad  masses,  calculated  to  produce  impression,  rather  than 
to  render  formal  detail.  One  point,  however,  should  be  noted  to  which,  at  present,  I can  instance  no 
parallel  : it  is  the  deeply  scooped-out  grooves  which  separate  the  masses  of  hair,  and  which  are 
doubtless  intended  to  help  out  the  effects  of  light  and  shade.  In  both  heads  the  structure  and 
modelling  of  the  forehead  correspond  in  their  every  part ; further,  the  nose,  with  the  great  width 
between  the  eyes,  the  form  of  the  eyeball,  and  the  modelling  of  both  upper  and  lower  lids,  are  precisely 
similar,  even  the  little  furrow  indicated  between  the  eyebrow  and  the  eyelid  being  rendered  in  both 
heads  with  identical  personal  touch.  Although  the  cheeks  of  the  Aberdeen  herd  are  fuller  than  those 
of  the  Hermes,  the  depression  in  the  fleshy  region  between  cheek-bone  and  jaw-bone  is  rendered  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  Hermes,  where  the  treatment  of  the  cheek  contributes  in  so  high 
a degree  to  the  dreamy  grace  and  spiritual  delicacy  of  the  face  (well  seen  in  the  fine  photograph  of 
the  profile  by  Rhomai'des).  The  Aberdeen  head  has  fuller,  more  sensuous  lips  than  the  Hermes,  but 
their  form  is  the  same,  and  the  corners  of  the  mouth  are,  like  those  not  only  of  the  Hermes  but  also 
of  the  Leconfield  Aphrodite,  worked  with  the  drill,  the  marks  of  which  are  quite  distinct.  The  chin 
has  the  same  full  rounded  character  as  the  lips  ; it  is  shorter,  and  has  a more  marked  dimple  than 
that  of  the  Hermes.  Finally,  the  close  correspondence  in  the  measurements  of  the  two  heads  cannot 


THE  ABERDEEN  HEAD 


347 


attention  to  one  of  his  contemporaries,  who  is  an  imposing  figure  in  the  traditions 
of  the  time,  though  we  have  so  far  been  unable  to  obtain  a distinct  picture  of 
his  art. 


be  without  significance  : these  have  been  lately  accurately  taken  and  published  by  Dr.  Kalkmann  in 
his  Proportional  des  Gesichts  in  der  Griechischen  Kunst  (53rd  Winckelinannsfestprogramm , 1893),  on 
p.  98,  under  Nos.  123  and  124,  as  follows  : — 


Distance  between  [outer  corners  of  the]  eyes  . 

Eye  to  chin  

Height  of  face 

Distance  between  ears  

Nose  to  neck 


Hermes. 

Aberdeen  head 

I 12  mm. 

....  108 

mm. 

129  ,, 

....  127 

3? 

196-2  „ 

....  194L 

73 

165  „ 

....  162 

33 

21°  „ 

. . . . 202 

53 

(Cf.  also  ibid.  p.  109  and  text  p.  41.) 


In  looking  at  the  silhouette  of  the  two  heads,  it  must  however  be  owned  that  the  Aberdeen  head 
presents  a much  broader  outline  at  the  top  than  does  the  Hermes.  This  divergence  is,  I think,  only 
superficial,  and  is  solely  due  to  the  difference  alluded  to  above  in  the  conception  of  the  hair  as  a mass. 
The  ears  of  the  Aberdeen  head  are  much  knocked  about,  which  makes  comparison  difficult,  still  the 
cartilage  seems  flattened,  or  rather  as  it  were  folded  back,  and  kept  close  to  the  head,  thus  presenting 
a variation  from  the  treatment  of  the  ears  in  the  Hermes.  The  lobe  too  is  rather  larger  than  in  the 
latter,  though  the  drawing  about  the  hollow  of  the  ear  and  the  large  hollow  itself  are  points  of 
resemblance.  Only  a small  portion  of  the  neck  is  preserved,  but  this  suffices  to  show  a breadth  and 
strength  which  are  eminently  Praxitelean.  The  head  has  a slight  inclination  to  the  left,  on  which  side 
the  muscles  are  relaxed.  The  marble  of  the  Aberdeen  head  is  the  finest  Parian  ; in  the  hair  are  holes 
for  the  attachment  of  a metal  wreath. 

The  great  likeness  notwithstanding,  a glance  at  the  Aberdeen  head  shows  that  the  hero  or  god  it 
represents  is  of  a different  nature  to  the  Hermes.  Kalkmann  [loc.  cit.)  calls  the  head  a ‘ Praxitelean 
Herakles,’  while  we  have  seen  that  in  the  British  Museum  guide-book  it  was  called  a ‘young 
Hercules.’  Such  in  effect  I believe  it  to  be.  The  greater  emphasis  laid  on  the  sensuous  physical  side 
suits  this  interpretation.  Nor  is  it,  I think,  fanciful  to  detect  a likeness  between  this  youthful  beardless 
Herakles  and  the  bearded  Herakles  Chiaramonti  (supra,  Fig.  147).  When  Dr.  Wolters  considered 
that,  in  spite  of  resemblances,  the  ‘Aberdeen  head’  only  proved  after  all  ‘ wie  unendlich  hoch  der 
Hermes  in  der  feinen  Durchbildung  aller  Teile  fiber  den  anderen  Werken  derselben  Zeit  steht  ’ — the 
difference  he  detected  was,  I believe,  not  one  of  quality  but  of  conception. 

The  technique,  the  slight  working  of  the  under  lid,  the  use  of  the  drill  for  the  corners  of  the 
mouth,  show  that  the  work  belongs  to  the  artist’s  later  period.  At  the  back,  on  the  right-hand  side,  a 
portion  of  the  head  has  been  cut  away  in  a slanting  direction  ; we  have  there  a tooled  surface  showing 
that  the  head  probably  underwent  this  maltreatment  in  order  to  be  fitted  into  a pediment  or  some 
other  architectural  frame.  As  regards  the  provenance  of  the  head,  Wolters  had  well  pointed  out  (loc. 
cit.)  that  from  what  we  knew  of  the  Aberdeen  collection  it  was  likely  the  original  had  come  straight 
from  Greece  ; it  is  probable  that  by  gaining  access  to  the  still  unpublished  Journals  kept  by  Lord 
Aberdeen  during  his  tour  in  Greece  (cf.  Life  of  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  by  the  Hon.  Sir  Arthur 
Gordon,  p.  10)  interesting  facts  with  regard  to  this  head  might  come  to  light.  Its  significance  for 
our  present  purpose,  however,  lies  not  so  much  in  its  provenance  or  in  its  interpretation  (two  points 
on  which  Professor  Klein,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  will  have  much  to  say)  as  in  its  formal  and 
stylistic  kinship  to  the  series  of  Praxitelean  works  discussed  above  by  Professor  Furtwangler. — 
E.  S.] 


34§ 


EUPHRANOR 


III.  Euphranor. — Imitation  of  Polykleitos  and  of  the  olden  Argive  Types.— Bonus 
Event  us  ; Dionysos  ; A polio  Patroos  ; Paris  and  Aphrodite  ; A thena. — Lysippos. 

Tradition  names  Euphranor  as  a celebrated  painter  as  well  as  sculptor.  His 
versatility  is  especially  praised,  for  he  distinguished  himself  in  every  branch  of 
the  plastic  arts,  and  moreover  busied  himself  with  their  theory  as  well  as  with  their 
practice.  Still,  nothing  is  ever  said  to  lead  one  to  suppose  that  he  had  a pronounced 
individuality.  Here,  however,  as  elsewhere,  we  must  guard  carefully  against  trying 
to  extract  too  much  definite  criticism  from  the  statements  made  by  ancient  writers 
on  art.  For  instance,  when  Pliny  says  that  in  looking  at  the  Paris  by  Euphranor 
the  spectator  could  realize  all  at  once  ‘ the  judge  of  the  goddesses,  the  lover  of  Helen, 
and  even  the  murderer  of  Achilles,’  he  is  evidently  merely  quoting  a neatly  turned 
epigram.  Critics  ambitious  to  shine  have  ever  shown  themselves  adepts  at  reading 
the  most  incredible  meanings  into  works  of  art  ; but  their  utterances  are  of  no  value 
for  the  objective  understanding  of  the  subject,  and  we  need  not  conclude  that  the 
Paris  was  a psychological  conception.1  Nor,  again,  when  a saying  by  Euphranor 
himself  is  quoted  to  the  effect  that  his  Theseus  was  fed  on  meat,  but  that  of 
Parrhasios  on  roses,  should  we  be  justified  in  assuming  any  special  realistic  tendency 
in  the  artist.2  The  saying  possibly  arose  from  some  comparison  of  the  two  pictures  : 
in  the  one  the  flesh-tints  may  actually  have  been  rosier,  in  the  other  duskier  and 
less  transparent.  Pliny,  however,  makes  one  significant  criticism,  belonging  to  that 
series  which  is  almost  certainly  borrowed  from  Xenokrates,3  to  the  effect  that  the 
bodies  of  Euphranor’s  figures  were  too  slight,  while  the  heads  and  limbs  were  too 
large,  a fault  which  he  also  attributes  to  Zeuxis.  The  criticism,  like  all  those  of 
Xenokrates,  refers  probably  only  to  some  one  principal  work  of  the  artist,  and  is 
made  from  a Lysippian  standpoint,  according  to  which  the  heads  of  all  earlier  statues 
appeared  too  large  for  the  bodies.  It  teaches  us  this  much  only,  that  Euphranor,  like 
Zeuxis,  adopted  the  older,  pre-Lysippian  proportions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  dis- 
paraging statement  about  the  disproportionate  slightness  of  the  body  is  of  greater 
importance,  for  it  implies  that  the  figures  of  Euphranor’s  statues  must  have  had 
something  spare  and  hard  about  them,  since  no  critic  of  the  Lysippian  school  could 
ever  consider  actual  slightness  of  figure  as  a fault.  The  statement  at  any  rate 
contradicts  most  emphatically  the  modern  conception  of  the  figures  of  Euphranor, 
which — on  the  ground  of  that  saying  concerning  the  Theseus,  and  also  because  the 
artist  was  said  to  have  well  expressed  the  ‘worth  of  heroes’ — have  been  imagined  as 
powerful  and  of  imposing  proportions.4  On  the  contrary,  we  should  rather  imagine 
the  bodies  of  his  statues  to  have  been  spare. 

Ancient  writers  date  Euphranor  by  the  battle  of  Mantineia  (362  B.C.),  an  episode 
of  which — the  famous  Athenian  cavalry  engagement — he  had  painted  in  the  Stoa 
Basileios  at  Athens  (Paus.  i.  3,  4).  It  is  of  course  unlikely  that  so  considerable 
a public  commission  would  be  intrusted  to  a very  young  artist,  and,  since  among 
Euphranor’s  bronze  works  mention  is  made  of  figures  of  Alexander  and  of  Philip 
in  quadrigis,  for  which  no  more  suitable  occasion  could  be  found  than  the  battle  of 
Chaironeia  (where  Alexander  had  distinguished  himself  by  the  side  of  Philip),  it 
seems  likely  that  Euphranor’s  artistic  activity  lies  between  375  and  330  B.C.,  and  that 


1 Cf.  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzimgsber.  1892,  663. 

3 Cf,  Robert,  Arch.  Mdrchen , p.  68  seq. 


- Brunn,  toe.  cit.,  and  K.  G.  ii.  187  seq. 
4 Brunn,  K.  G.  ii.  189  seq. 


BONUS  EVENTUS 


349 


he  was  thus  throughout  his  career  a contemporary  of  Praxiteles.  His  son  Sostratos, 
according  to  extant  inscriptions,1  worked  in  Athens  and  the  Peiraieus,  and  he  is 
mentioned  by  Pliny  among  the  artists  of  the  epoch  of  Alexander. 

Euphranor  was  a native  of  the  Isthmos,  i.e.  of  Corinth.  Considering  the  intimate 
relations  of  Corinth  and  Athens  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  a Corinthian  should  settle  for  a time  at  Athens.  Nevertheless,  he  was 
a pupil  of  the  Peloponnesian  school.  His  master  was  Aristeides,  not,  as  Pliny 
incorrectly  states,  the  celebrated  painter,  but  the  bronze-worker,  himself  a pupil  of 
Polykleitos.2  Therefore  Euphranor  too  belongs  to  the  outer  circle  of  the  Polykleitan 
school.3 

One — and  only  one — work  by  him,  the  Leto  carrying  her  children  in  her  arms, 
has  so  far  been  doubtfully  recognized  in  copies.4  But  it  has  lately  been  shown  on 
convincing  grounds 5 that  the  two  statuettes  in  which  archaeologists  saw  copies 
after  Euphranor  really  reproduce  a work  of  the  severe  style  of  about  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century,  and  that  Euphranor’s  Leto  consequently  still  awaits  discovery. 
We  are  not,  however,  entirely  without  any  landmarks  to  enable  us  to  get  some  idea 
of  his  style.  Among  his  bronze  statues  Pliny  mentions  a Bonus  Eventus , holding 
a patera  in  his  right  hand  and  ears  of  corn  and  poppies  in  his  left.  From  this 
description  it  has  been  rightly  conjectured  that  the  statue  originally  represented 
Triptolcmos,  and  was  therefore  of  necessity  a youthful  figure.6  Since  it  bore  the  name 
of  a Roman  god,  the  statue  had  evidently  been  brought  to  Rome.7 8  A Bom/s  Eventus 
by  Praxiteles  was  also  at  Rome,  together  with  a Bona  For  tuna?  In  this  case  the 
original  Greek  names  must  certainly  have  been  Agathodaimon  and  Agathe  Tyche , 
and  the  former,  judging  from  his  received  Attic  type9  such  as  we  see  it  on  an  Attic 
votive  relief  when  he  appears  in  company  with  Agathe  Tyche ,10  must  have  been 
represented  something  in  the  manner  of  Pluto,  as  a draped  bearded  figure  holding 
a cornucopia. 

Roman  Imperial  coins,  however,  from  Galba  onwards,  and  likewise  gems,11  very 
frequently  bear  the  figure  of  a youth  described  in  the  coin  legend  as  a Bonus  Eventus 
{supra,  Plate  VI.  37;  infra,  Fig.  149).  Now,  since  this  figure  corresponds  strictly  with 
the  description  of  Euphranor’s  work,  and  is  obviously  copied  from  a statue  made  to 
stand  alone — a statue  moreover  which  must  have  been  celebrated  and  in  Rome,  and 
the  main  points  of  which  are  always  carefully  reproduced — it  becomes  as  certain  as 


1 Lowy,  I.  G.  B.  105,  106. 

2 Kroker,  Gleichnamige  Kiinstkr , p.  25  sqq.  ; Robert,  Archdol.  Mar.  p.  83. 

3 It  is  uncertain  whether  Sostratos,  who  is  mentioned  as  the  sixth  successor  of  Aristokles  of  Sikyon,  was  the 
father  of  Euphranor.  In  that  case,  Pantias  the  Chian,  who  made  statues  of  Olympian  victors,  must  have  been  his 
brother.  This  would  not  be  impossible.  Lowy  on  I.  G.  B.  No.  105  also  suggested  a family  connexion  between 
the  elder  Sostratos  and  Euphranor. 

4 Schreiber,  Apollon  Pythoktonos,  pp.  70,  88;  Overbeck,  Gesch.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  eel.  ii.  86;  Apollon,  p.  371  ; 
Helbig,  Museums,  421. 

5 E.  Reisch,  ‘ Ein  vermeintliches  Werk  des  Euphranor,’  in  Festgruss  aus  Innsbruck  an  die  Philologeviver- 

samml.  in  Wien,  Innsbruck  1S93.  « Cf.  Kern,  Ath.  Mittk.  xvi.  25  seq. 

7 In  Pliny’s  account  it  stands  between  two  works  whose  position  in  Rome  is  accurately  given. 

8 Plin.  xxxvi.  23.  On  the  Capitol.  » Cf.  Kern,  Ath.  Mitth.  xvi.  24  seq. 

10  Anc.  Marbles  of  the  Brit.  Mus.  xi.  47.  The  beardless  figure  carrying  a horn  of  plenty  on  a votive  relief 

rorn  Kyrene  (Arckaeologia  Scotica,  iv.  PI.  17  ; J.  H.  S.  v.  157,  3)  is  closely  analogous. 

11  Some  of  the  more  important  gems  are  : carnelian  in  the  British  Museum  (our  Fig.  149),  Catal.  929,  already 
given  by  Natter,  Traiti,  PI.  23,  also  Cades,  cl.  ii.  G,  57,  58-  Several  instances  in  Vienna  and  in  Copenhagen 
(Abdr.  der  Dan.  Samml.  in  Berlin  295 — 297),  a good  emerald-plasma  in  the  Thorwaldsen  Museum,  No.  610,  several 
stones  in  St.  Petersburg  (Abdr.  in  Berlin,  20,  16  ; 26,  14  ; 32,  86;  35,  47  ; 44,  59),  Coll.  Schonberg  (Abdr.  127), 
etc.  Coins:  cf.  the  index  of  Cohen,  Med.  Imptlr.  2nd  ed.  viii.  p.  365,  Bonus  Eventus.  In  the  Berlin  collection  I 
have  compared  pieces  of  Titus,  Hadrian,  and  Antoninus  ; they  continuously  show  exactly  the  same  type  as  the  gems. 


350 


EUPHRANOR 


such  things  can  be  that  this  statue  was  actually  the  work  of  Euphranor.  This  is 
of  the  highest  importance,  for  an  examination  of  the  figure  shows  that  Euphranor 
followed  that  Argive  type  of  which  we  found  the  Idolino  to  be  the  finest  example. 
The  youth  rests  on  his  right  leg,  and  places  the  other  to  the  side  without  drawing  it 
back  ; he  bends  his  head  to  the  right,  holds  the  cup  in  his  right  hand, 
while  in  the  left,  which  hangs  down,  he  holds  a bunch  of  ears  of 
corn,  or  of  poppies  and  corn  mixed.  The  better  reproductions  reveal 
a certain  spareness  of  form  which  is  specially  conspicuous  in  the 
Idolino,  so  that  the  Bonus  Eventus  has  all  the  characteristics  of  style 
which  tradition  ascribes  to  Euphranor. 

Taking  this  Bonus  Eventus  as  a basis  from  which  to  recover  the 
standing  male  figures  of  Euphranor,  we  may  now  venture  further,  and 
turn  our  attention  to  a small  group  of  figures  which  reproduce  the 
Idolino  type  so  popular,  as  we  have  seen,  in  Argive  circles  of  the 
fifth  century,  in  a style  which  savours  more  of  the  fourth.  Among  these  by 
far  the  most  important  is  a statue  of  Dionysos  (Fig.  1 50), 1 found  at  Tivoli.  A 
number  of  traits  combine  to  suggest  that  it  must  be  taken  as  a copy  after 
Euphranor.  It  may  even  be  the  very  statue  of  Dionysos  by  him  which  epigra- 
phical  evidence  shows  to  have  been  at  Rome,  or  at  any  rate  to  have  been  copied 
there.2  The  god  stood  exactly  in  the  attitude  of  the  Idolino.  The  left  leg  has  been 
wrongly  restored;3  it  originally  was  planted  sideways  with  the  foot  flat  on  the 
ground.  The  right  hand  held  a cup,  the  left  hangs  empty  by  the  side.  Imme- 
diately on  its  discovery  the  connexion  of  the  statue  with  Polykleitos  was  noticed,4 
but  too  much  was  made  of  it,5  and  those  who  attributed  it  to  Polykleitos  himself 
wandered  far  from  the  truth.  On  the  other  hand,  Michaelis,  to  whom  we  are  indebted 
for  an  excellent  analysis  of  the  statue,  has  made  too  little  of  this  Polykleitan  influence, 
and  has  certainly  not  hit  on  the  right  solution  when  he  talks  of  late  eclecticism.  It  is 
to  be  hoped  that  this  is  only  a last  flicker  of  that  unfortunate  theory,  now  practically 
extinct,  of  an  independent  ‘ Tasitelean  school  ’ — a theory  by  whose  delusive  light  it 
was  formerly  hoped  to  illumine  all  dark  places. 

The  close  connexion  of  this  statue  with  the  works  of  the  Polykleitan  circle  is 
absolutely  unmistakable,  especially  in  the  forehead,  eyes,  mouth,  and  profile,  and  in 
the  nebris,  which  is  disposed  precisely  as  in  the  Dionysos  of  the  Polykleitan  school 
mentioned  on  page  272.  But  a comparison  with  the  Polykleitan  Dionysos  and  with 
the  other  undisputed  works  of  the  same  school  shows  that  we  have  before  us  no 
production  of  the  actual  inner  Polykleitan  circle.  The  Dionysos  of  Tivoli  can  only 
belong  to  the  fourth  century,6  for  its  refined,  delicate,  and  natural  modelling  is  not 
found  in  earlier  works.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  formation  of  the  toes  (Michaelis 
has  already  drawn  attention  to  their  Praxitelean  quality)  or  the  richly  and  softly 
modelled  knee  with  that  of  the  Polykleitan  Amazon,  where  this  part  is  harder  and 
more  simple,  or  the  hair,  which  in  this  statue  has  a much  more  natural  effect  than  in 
the  more  severely  stylistic  works  of  the  fourth  century.  Further,  in  that  Polykleitan 
Dionysos  there  is  not  the  slightest  admixture  of  those  feminine  forms  which,  as 


Fig.  14c). 
Carnelian  in  the 
British  Museum. 


1 Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  51  ; Ann.  1883,  136  sqq.  (Michaelis);  Thriimer  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1138;  Friederichs- 
Wolters,  520  fHIelbig,  Museums,  967.  Good  copyist  work  of  Hadrian’s  period. 

2 Ldwy,  I.  G.  B.  495.  It  seems  to  me  likely  that  the  inscription  stood  under  a copy  rather  than  under  the 
original. 

First’pointed  out  by  Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  238. 

4 Robert,  Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  137.  5 See  Wolters,  toe.  cit, 

b’  Helbig  (toe.  cit.)  is  of  the  same  opinion, 


DIONYSOS 


351 


Michaelis  has  shown,  arc  so  noticeable  a feature  in  the  Dionysos  of  Tivoli— as,  for 
instance,  in  the  glutei  and  the  upper  arm. 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  bodily  formation  is  still  that  of  the  Polykleitan  circle,  with 
which  the  artist  must  be  connected.  Apart  from  the  attitude,  the  Dionysos  resembles 
the  Idolino  in  having  a less  rounded  lower  abdominal  line  than  is  usual  in  Polykleitan 
statues.  The  way  too  in  which  the  hair  lies  close  to  the  skull,  and  allows  its  shape  to 
be  seen,  is  Polykleitan.  A resemblance  to  the  Electra  at  Naples  has  been  noted  in 


Fig.  150. — Dionysos  from  Tivoli  (Museo  delle  Terme). 


the  method  of  dressing  the  hair : the  likeness  consists  in  the  employment  of  the  roll 
of  hair  so  characteristic  of  earlier  Argive  art.1  In  the  Electra,  however,  the  roll  is 
arranged  in  front  of  the  ears  according  to  the  older  fashion,  while  in  the  Dionysos  it 
passes  behind  them,  in  an  original  manner.  In  this  hair-roll  we  can  anyhow  recognize 
the  influence  of  early  Argive  art. 

All  these  facts  fit  in  admirably  with  what  we  have  ascertained  about  Euphranor, 
and,  supposing  we  place  the  Lysippian  Apoxyomenos  beside  this  statue,  have  we  not 
the  best  possible  illustration  of  the  criticism  passed  by  Xenokrates  on  Euphranor  ? 


1 Cf.  50th  BerL  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  128  sqq. 


EUPHRANOR 


352 

As  a matter  of  fact,  beside  the  Apoxyomenos  the  Dionysos  looks  as  if  he  were  all 
head  and  limbs,  while  in  the  former  the  first  thing  which  catches  the  eye  is  the  torso, 
and  then  the  small  head  and  nervous  limbs  as  mere  appendages.  If  traces  of 
Euphranor  are  anywhere  to  be  found — and  he  must  be  represented  among  our  copies 
— this  Dionysos  is  by  him. 

By  its  means  several  other  statues  are  drawn  into  the  group  of  works  by  this 
master.  I formerly  thought  that  the  beautiful  bronze  representing  a youthful  Apollo 


Fig.  i 51. — Bronze  statue  of  Apollo  (Brit.  Mus.) 


Fig.  152.— Statue  in  Dresden. 


in  the  Sabouroff  Collection  1 was  a Peloponnesian  work  of  the  fourth  century,  which, 
starting  on  the  lines  of  the  Idolino,  was  closely  connected  with  the  Dionysos  of 
Tivoli.  We  can  now  recognize  in  it  an  original  work  in  the  style  of  Euphranor  ; 
attitude  and  position  are  the  same,  except  that  the  left  leg  is  drawn  slightly  back 
so  that  the  heel  is  somewhat  raised.  The  Apollo  is  appreciably  younger  and 
more  boyish  than  the  Dionysos,  and  naturally  shows  absolutely  no  admixture  of 
feminine  forms.  With  these  exceptions  the  likeness  of  the  two  figures  is  remarkable  ; 

1 Head  unfortunately  missing  ; Samrn.  Sabouroff,  PI.  8— u ; Skulpt . in  Berlin,  No.  1 ; Overbeck,  Apollon , 
p.  227  ; Brunn-Bruckmann,  DenJ.m.  No.  278. 


STATUES  OF  APOLLO 


353 


the  Argive  substratum  pierces  through  in  every  part : the  torso,  especially  the 
front  view  of  it,  is  rather  flat,  spare,  and  dry  j1  and  the  lifelike,  finely  formed  limbs 
are  in  strong  contrast  with  it.  The  fingers,  toes,  and  the  modelling  round  the  knee 
recall  the  Dionysos,  and  are  also  related  to  Praxitelean  work.  Now  that  we  have 
brought  the  Dionysos  into  connexion  with  Euphranor,  the  historical  position  of  the 
Apollo  also  becomes  intelligible. 

A bronze  statuette,  formerly  in  the  collection  Greau,2  seems  to  go  back  to  the 
same  original  as  the  Sabouroff  Apollo,  and  can  thus  afford  a notion  of  the  face  and 
hair.  A Hellenistic  imitation  of  an  original  closely  connected  with  the  preceding 
is  preserved  in  a large  bronze  statue  from  Lower  Egypt  in  the  British  Museum 
(Fig.  1 5 1 ).3  The  attitude  and  the  position  of  the  arms  are  like  the  Sabouroff  bronze  ; 
the  bodily  forms  resemble  the  Dionysos,  though  the  copyist  has  very  much  weakened 
his  model : the  head  is  not  bent,  the  eyes  gaze  straight  in  front  of  them,  the  hair 
is  very  individual ; it  lies  close  to  the  skull  ; it  is  confined  by  a twisted  fillet,  whence 
it  falls  in  loose  curls  all  round  the  head.  A work  by  Euphranor  must  have  been  the 
basis  for  this  statue  also. 

With  these  is  connected  a statue  at  Dresden  (Fig.  152),4  with  sufficient  remains  of 
the  arms  and  legs  to  show  that  the  attitude  was  analogous.  It  is  the  figure  of  a boy, 
similar  in  form  to  the  Sabouroff  bronze.  In  this  case  too  the  front  of  the  figure  is 
rather  flat  and  spare,  although  remarkable  for  its  softly  blended  transitions  of  surface. 
The  head,  which  is  unbroken,  turns  naturally  to  the  right,  and  is  slightly  bent ; the 
hair,  which  lies  close  to  the  head,  has  something  Polykleitan  in  its  arrangement  over 
the  forehead,  and  at  the  back  escapes  in  short  twisted  curls.  The  interpretation  of 
this  figure  is  uncertain,  since  it  belongs  to  no  known  type.  From  what  has  been  said, 
however,  it  is  a natural  step  to  conjecture  in  it  the  Triptolemos  {i.e.  Bonus  Eventus ) of 
Euphranor,  shown  to  exist  on  coins  and  gems,  and  to  restore  it  with  a cup  in  the 
right  hand  and  cars  of  corn  and  poppies  in  the  lowered  left ; at  any  rate,  it  will  be 
difficult  to  find  a better  explanation  for  this  remarkable  type. 

Further,  we  now  perceive  that  it  was  on  prototypes  in  Euphranor’s  style  that  the 
artists  of  Hadrian’s  day  based  certain  portraits  of  Antinous,  which  are  among  the 
most  celebrated  of  those  extant.5 

In  this  connexion  must  be  mentioned  a bronze  statuette  of  Dionysos  which 

1 Cf.  the  fuller  analysis  in  the  text  of  Samin.  Sabouroff,  p.  3 seq. 

2 Frohner,  Coll.  Gn’ait,  Bronzes  Ant.  No.  913,  PI.  20.  Now  in  Berlin;  cf .Ja/irb.  d.  Inst.  1886,  p.  157  ; Sanun. 
Sabouroff,  vol.  ii.  Nachtriige,  p.  1 ; Overbeck,  Apollon,  p.  229.  Mention  must  be  made  of  a statue  in  Cassel, 
under  life-size  (ii.  12),  in  attitude  and  bodily  forms  remarkably  like  this  Apollo;  no  remains  of  curls  on  the 
shoulders  ; the  neck  restored  ; the  head  antique  but  foreign  ; the  latter  is  copied  from  an  interesting  older 
Argive  work,  with  a roll  of  hair  in  front  and  behind.  Closely  allied  to  the  Sabouroff  bronze  is  another 
marble  statue,  with  foreign  head  and  no  curls  on  the  shoulders,  in  Catajo  (Arndt-Bruckmann,  Einzelverk. 
No.  59). 

6 Anc.  Marbles  of  the  Brit.  Mils.  xi.  33  ; Chirac,  482  C,  929  B.  From  the  Coll.  Mimaut.  Mentioned  by 
Michaelis,  Ann.  1883,  141.  The  legs  are  restored,  left  leg  too  far  drawn  back  ; the  attitude  was  that  of  the 
Sabouroff  bronze,  to  which  the  hanging  left  hand  corresponds  exactly ; thumb  and  forefinger,  little  finger,  and  hand 
are  fastened  together  for  security  by  bars  (not  the  remains  of  an  attribute) ; the  right  hand  differs  somewhat  from 
the  Sabouroff  bronze  ; it  appears  to  have  held  something  upright  (perhaps  a laurel-twig).  The  loose  curls  are 
made  separately  and  put  on.  Eyes  of  silver. 

4 Cat.  Hettner,  89  ; Becker,  August.  I'l.  87  ; Clarac,  S09,  2026.  The  restorations  (legs  from  above  the  knees, 
both  arms  from  the  middle  of  the  upper  arm)  have  been  removed  ; the  left  arm  was  lowered,  the  right  probably 
extended  outwards.  Length  of  face,  0'i52  ; distance  between  the  nipples,  o’i94  = height  of  head.  Our  illus- 
tration (Fig.  152)  shows  the  statue  in  the  same  characteristic  half-back  view  as  the  London  bronze  and  the  Tivoli 
Dionysos. 

5 The  Capitoline  (Friederichs-Wolters,  1659  ; Helbig,  Museums,  524)  and  the  Farnese  statue  in  Naples  (Mus. 
Borb.  6,  58).  The  former  most  certainly  represents  Antinous  as  Ilennes. 


Z Z 


354 


EUPHRANOR 


has  been  referred  to  Praxiteles.1  Though  different  in  conception,  and  more  full 
of  action  than  the  works  just  described,  it  is  yet  connected  with  them  first  of  all  by  a 
coiffure  similar  to  that  of  the  small  bronze  replica  of  the  Sabouroff  Apollo,  and 
secondly  by  the  clear  reminiscences  of  Polykleitos  in  the  formation  of  the  face,  the 
arrangement  of  the  nebris,  which  is  merely  knotted  on  the  one  shoulder,  like  the  one 
worn  by  the  Tivoli  Dionysos,  and  lastly  also  by  the  essential  qualities  of  the  bodily 
forms,  For  the  rest,  the  statuette  is  of  Roman  workmanship,  and  is  in  no  sense  an 
exact  copy.2 


So  far  all  the  male  statues  referred  to  Euphranor  and  to  his  influence  have  been 
based  on  the  scheme  of  the  Idolino.  There  exist  however  copies  of  a remarkable 
work  which  at  first  sight  seems  strange  when  seen  among  the  preceding  ones, 
but  which  is  nevertheless  closely  connected  with  them,  except  that  it  is  based  on 
another  and  older  Argive  type,  which  is  no  other  than  the  one  created  by  the  school  of 
Ilagelaidas,  and  which,  as  we  saw,  was  also  used  in  the  Polykleitan  circle  (p.  287  sqq.) 

The  figure  in  question  represents  a youthful  nude  Apollo  ; the  best-known  copy 
is  the  so-called  ‘Adonis’  of  the  Vatican  (Fig.  153).3  The  identification  as  Apollo  is 
confirmed  by  a number  of  other  copies  4 which  have  preserved  undoubted  Apolline 
attributes.  The  god,  in  complete  harmony  with  the  Argive  scheme,  stands  on  the 
left  leg,  with  the  right  foot  placed  with  full  sole  to  the  side  and  somewhat  in  advance 
of  the  other  ; he  looks  with  bent  head  towards  the  left,  and  stretches  his  left  forearm 
horizontally  in  front  of  him,  while  letting  the  right  hand  hang  straight  down.  The 
left  hand  probably  held  a bow.  In  one  copy  the  right  holds  the  remains  of  a strap, 
which  can  only  have  belonged  to  a quiver  which  was  dangling  from  it  ; in  another  copy 
the  quiver  hangs  on  the  tree-trunk  beside  the  left  leg,  and  in  yet  another  the  quiver-strap 
passes  round  the  chest.  From  these  variations  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  quiver 
was  not  a feature  of  the  original.  The  notion  of  making  the  right  hand  hold  the 
quiver  by  the  strap  was  introduced  by  the  copyist  from  another  older  statue  of  Apollo5 

1 By  Milani  in  Masco  ital.  di  antich.  classica,  iii.  Tav.  7,  p.  753  sqq.\  Sal.  Reinach  {Gas.  des  Beaux- Arts, 
1891,  ii.  265)  follows  him  ; Heron  de  Villefosse,  Bulletin  des  Muse.es,  1892,  p.  29  ; Michon,  Mon.  Grecs, 
1891-92,  p.  2.  Cf.  p.  337,  note  5. 

- In  the  Louvre,  from  Italy,  supposed  to  have  been  found  on  the  Akropolis.  The  appearance  of  the  bronze 
is  against  this  view.  The  metal  has  the  yellow  colour  peculiar  to  the  Roman  bronzes,  more  especially  to  those 
found  in  Gaul.  It  never  occurs,  to  my  knowledge,  on  Greek  bronzes.  The  patina  is,  moreover,  quite  different  from 
that  of  the  Akropolis  bronzes,  and  the  workmanship  is  of  Roman  style  ; the  hair  is  bluntly  worked,  the 
superficial  modelling  of  the  bodily  forms  lacks  insight  and  refinement.  The  statuette  has  altogether  been 
much  overvalued. 

3 Helbig,  Museums,  No.  255,  and  vol.  i.  p.  545,  for  the  literature  of  the  subject. 

4 Lansdowne  House,  in  the  dining-room  ; Clarac,  906  C,  476  A.  The  head  is  genuine,  and  wears  a laurel- 
wreath  and  the  loop  of  hair  which  designates  Apollo  ; the  wreath  is  of  course  merely  an  addition  of  the 
copyist.  The  right  leg  is  wrongly  restored,  set  back.  — St.  Petersburg,  Hermitage,  340  ; D’Escamps,  Marbres 
Campana,  PI.  36.  Head  well  preserved  ; inferior  work.  In  the  antique  right  hand  is  a fragment  of  a strap 
(wrongly  restored  as  a taenia),  which  must  belong  to  the  quiver-band  ; puntelli  on  the  thigh  show  its  continua- 
tion ; both  legs  are  restored.  The  left  forearm,  stretched  straight  out,  is  antique,  the  hand  with  the  diskos 
lately  restored. — Richmond,  in  possession  of  Sir  Francis  Cook;  noted  by  me  in  50th  Bcrl.  Winckelmannsprogr. 
1890,  p.  152,  note  92.  Trunk  with  quiver  partly  antique  ; head  preserved  ; right  hand  and  left  forearm  new  ; 
feet  antique  ; mediocre  work. — Rome,  Pal.  Chigi  : Guattani,  1785,  p.  7 ; Clarac,  4S9,  947  ; Matz-Duhn,  184  ; 
Overbeck,  Apollon,  p.  135,  13.  Quiver-band  round  the  breast,  not  continued  over  the  back.  Trunk  with  snake, 
feet  and  forearm  new,  the  rest  antique.  Very  poor  copy,  inexact  in  the  hair,  effeminate  expression.  Torso  in 
Berlin,  No.  511,  good  copy.  Torso  restored  as  Hermes,  formerly  in  Villa  Casali,  now  in  the  Jacobsen  Coll,  in 
Copenhagen,  No.  1059  ; right  shin  wrongly  restored,  as  if  drawn  back  ; good  copy.  Head  without  fillet,  placed 
on  the  Munich  ‘Jason’  (Brunn,  Glypt.  No.  151). 

5 The  Mantua  Apollo  (cf.  50th  Bcrl.  Winckelmannsprogr.  p.  141  seq.)  and  the  later  modification  in  the  Museo 
Torlonia  (Taf.  32,  126  ; Overbeck,  Atlas  d . K.  Taf.  23,  24  ; Apollon,  p.  225,  1),  and  the  coins  there  referred  to. 


‘ADONIS 


355 


very  like  this  one  ; in  the  original  of  the  Adonis-Apollo,  however,  the  right  hand 
most  probably  held  a laurel-branch. 

This  statue  again  is  entirely  built  up  on  the  lines  of  a fifth-century  creation  ; nay, 
the  artist  has  been  so  penetrated  with  the  popular  canon  of  Hagelaidas  that  he  has 
imported  into  his  own  work  some  slight  reflex  of  its  proportions:  for  example,  he  has 
made  the  chest  too  broad  for  the  narrow  hips. 

But  above  all  he  has  everywhere  retained  the 
practice  of  treating  the  front  of  the  body  in 
simple,  broad  planes.  The  work  cannot  how- 
ever belong  to  the  fifth  century.  The  transitions 
from  plane  to  plane  arc  soft  and  smooth,  and 
the  formation  of  particular  parts  such  as  breast 
or  knee  find  their  closest  analogy  in  works 
belonging — like  the  Thespian  Eros  and  the 
‘ Satyr  pouring  out  wine  ’ — to  the  early  period 
of  Praxiteles.  The  relation  of  the  head  to 
this  series  is  likewise  manifest — its  likeness  to 
that  of  the  Thespian  Eros  being  specially 
striking.  All  this  is  of  weight  so  far  as  the  date 
of  the  statue  is  concerned  ; but  now,  passing  to 
the  more  delicate  personal  traits,  we  find  they 
all  speak  for  Euphranor.  In  common  with  the 
bronze  Apollo  in  the  British  Museum,  the 
‘ Adonis  ’ has  hair  lying  close  to  the  skull  and 
then  escaping  in  a rough  tangle  of  short  curls — 
a peculiar  and  original  arrangement,  not  met 
with  elsewhere  in  statues  of  Apollo.  Some 
copies,  though  certainly  not  all,  even  have  the 
twisted  fillet.  Here  too,  as  in  the  Dionysos  of 
Tivoli,  earlier  Peloponnesian  influences  are  at 
work.  With  the  customary  type  this  Apollo 
has  as  little  in  common  as  the  Dionysos.  Both 
however  are  closely  related  in  their  facial  forms  ; 
they  both  aim  at  typical  beauty  rather  than  at 
spiritual  characterization.  Both  have  the  same 
heavy  eyelids,  treated  after  the  earlier  fashion, 
and  similar  ends  of  hair  falling  about  the  nape. 

In  face  and  figure,  and  even  in  hair,  the 
‘ Adonis-Apollo  ’ resembles  the  curly-headed 
Dresden  youth  (Fig.  152)  still  more  strongly. 

Finally,  if  we  survey  the  composition  as  a fig.  153.— Apollo  (‘Adonis'),  Vatican, 

whole,  we  recognize  in  the  Apollo  that  self- 
same spirit  and  temper  which  pervades  the  works  grouped  round  Euphranor’s  name. 
The  spirit  of  the  old  Argive  creation  lives  again,  rendered  in  the  softer  manner  of 
a later  age.  Unoccupied,  unconcerned  by  any  inward  and  personal  emotion,  these 
figures  stand  absolutely  at  rest,  with  heads  gently  bent,  basking  as  it  were  in 
their  own  beauty. 

The  early  works  of  Praxiteles — the  Thespian  Eros  and  the  Satyr  pouring  wine1 — 

1 In  proportions,  especially  the  small  head,  these  are  closely  related  to  the  Apollo. 


356 


EUPHRANOR 


arc,  as  already  stated,  specially  related  to  this  Apollo,  and  we  may  conclude  that  the 
two  artists  were  closely  connected.  Both  were  influenced  by  Peloponnesian  models. 
But  the  active  emotional  Attic  spirit  in  Praxiteles  can  never  be  disguised  ; in  spite  of 
their  tranquil  motive,  those  Praxitelean  statues  are  all  doing  something,  even  down  to 
the  Thespian  Eros,  employed  in  spreading  the  meshes  of  his  glances. 

If  the  Apollo  of  the  so-called  Adonis  type  belongs  to  Euphranor,  as  every- 
thing seems  to  indicate,  it  must,  like  those  works  of  his  contemporary  Praxiteles,  be 
placed  in  his  earlier  period,  so  that  the  difference  between  the  Apollo  and  those  other 
works  which  form  a group  with  the  Dionysos  becomes  explicable  as  a difference  of 
time.  In  his  early  period  the  artist  was  permeated  by  the  old  types  created  by 
Ilagelaidas,  and  fashioned  his  genius  after  them.  Later,  he  gave  the  preference  to  the 
Idolino  type,  and  developed  its  bodily  forms  in  the  direction  of  softness  and  roundness, 
as  shown  in  the  Dionysos  and  the  Sabouroff  Apollo.1  The  criticism  passed  by 
Xcnokrates  deals  only  with  these  later  works. 

The  Apollo  of  the  ‘ Adonis  ’ type  must,  to  judge  from  the  replicas,  have  been  a 
well-known  and  celebrated  work.  A similar  figure  resting  on  the  left  leg,  the  right 
somewhat  advanced,  the  bow  in  the  left  hand,  a twig  in  the  right,  appears  on  later 
Athenian  coins,2  whence  it  is  safe  to  conjecture  that  it  is  a reproduction  of  one  of  the 
principal  statues  in  the  city,  such  as  for  instance  the  statue  of  Apollo  Patroos,  the 
special  god  of  the  Attic  race,  in  his  temple  on  the  Agora.3  Now,  since  the  cultus- 
statue  of  the  Patroos  actually  was  the  work  of  Euphranor,4  it  seems  not  impossible 
that  our  copies  reproduce  that  very  statue. 

The  style  of  the  Corinthian  Euphranor  must  have  been  much  appreciated  in 
Athens,  since  he  was  commissioned  to  execute  the  Patroos.  The  fact  testifies  to  the 
enthusiasm  for  Peloponnesian  art  which  must  have  reigned  in  Athens  at  that  time,  and 
which  enables  us  to  understand  still  better  the  early  work  of  Praxiteles.  It  certainly 
must  have  been  a great  surprise  to  the  Athenians  to  see  Euphranor  represent  their 
Patroos  almost  as  a boy  with  a round  curly  head,  and  in  a tranquil  attitude.  Yet 
the  creation  found  favour  and  reflected  the  more  effeminate  spirit  of  the  age, 
even  as  the  powerful,  virile  Apollo  of  Kalamis  and  Myron  had  reflected  the  spirit 
of  theirs. 

An  original  work  from  the  Akropolis,  unfortunately  only  a torso,5  bears  witness 
to  the  influence  of  Euphranor  on  contemporary  Attic  artists.  It  too  is  an  Apollo, 
with  soft,  boyish  forms,  showing  in  attitude  and  conformation  the  influence  of  the 
figure  surmised  to  be  the  Patroos;0  yet  the  artist  has,  in  Attic  fashion,  replaced 
the  spareness  and  flatness  affected  by  Euphranor  by  more  softly  rounded  flesh,  and  he 
has  obviously  been  influenced  not  only  by  this  master  but  by  Praxiteles.  He  was, 
however,  one  of  the  lesser  artists ; his  work  must  be  dated  at  about  360  B.C. 

The  Apollo  has  its  exact  counterpart  in  a Dionysos,7  evidently  belonging  to  the 

1 The  Adonis- Apollo  is  flatter  in  breast  and  abdomen  than  these.  The  fold  which  separates  the  pubic 
region  from  the  abdomen  is  carried  directly  into  the  sulcus  inguinalis  as  in  the  Polykleitan  statues  of  boys.  In 
those  later  works  this  is  no  longer  the  case. 

2 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  CC.  xv.  xvii.  ( = our  Plate  VI.  31);  Overbeck,  Apollon , 
Miinztaf.  4,  33.  Cf.  p.  196,  note  2. 

3 Cf.  Wachsmuth,  Stadt  Athen , ii.  418  ; Aristot,  ' M.  iro\.  c.  55,  3 ; Beule  (Moan.  d’At/i.  p.  271 
connected  the  Patroos  with  these  coins. 

4 Statues  by  Kalamis  and  Leochares  stood  outside  the  temple  : Paus.  i.  3,  4. 

5 So-called  Elgin  ‘ Eros’  in  the  British  Museum  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1291.  With  quiver-band  ; of  course 
Apollo,  not  Eros,  who  is  excluded  by  the  absence  of  wings. 

6 Weight  on  the  left  leg,  right  foot  a little  drawn  back. 

7 It  is  the  type  of  the  horned  Dionysos,  discussed  by  Amelung,  Florentiner  Antiken , p.  15  sqq.  I had  always 
supposed  the  head  in  Florence  (Amelung,  pp.  16,  17)  to  be  a variant  of  the  ‘ Adonis,’  but  the  replicas  enumerated 


DIONYSOS— HERAKLES— PARIS 


357 


same  period  of  Euphranor’s  activity,  and  of  which  the  head,  at  any  rate,  has  been  pre- 
served in  several  copies.  We  may  venture  to  restore  the  body  on  the  analogy  of  that 
of  the  Apollo,  to  which  it  must  have  offered  a complete  resemblance.  Like  the  Apollo, 
this  Dionysos  differs  from  the  received  types  in  that  his  thick,  short,  curly  hair,  in 
which  we  again  find  a twisted  fillet,  lies  close  to  the  skull.  The  modelling  of  the  face 
and  the  self-absorbed  expression  are  extraordinarily  like  the  Apollo.  The  earlier 
works  of  Praxiteles  are  also  akin  to  it ; but  this  master  always  makes  the  features 
less  massive  and  simple,  and  gives  them  a more  delicately  emotional  grace. 

It  further  appears  that  we  possess  copies  of  yet  another  work  by  Euphranor,  in 
which  he  clung  close  to  the  Hagelaidas  types.  On  a term  found  in  Rome  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  which  afterwards  disappeared,  ran  the  inscription  ‘Hpa/cVj? 
’ Ei nfapdvopos.1  This  proves  that  a terminal  Herakles  by  Euphranor  was  well  known  at 
Rome  through  copies.  In  the  Villa  Ludovisi  there  is  a series  of  terminal  figures  which 
must  once  have  adorned  a gymnasium  of  some  kind,  and  which  are  copies  of  works 
in  divers  styles.2  Among  them  is  a Herakles  holding  a cornucopia,  in  which  I had 
already  recognized  a later  adaptation  of  the  Alexikakos  of  Hagelaidas.3  Since  then  a 
statuette  has  been  found  in  Rome  which  in  all  main  points  corresponds  to  the  idea 
which  one  would  naturally  form  of  the  Herakles  by  the  early  Argive  master,  except 
that  the  copyist  seems  to  have  replaced  the  cornucopia  on  the  left  arm  by  the  more 
familiar  lion-skin.4  The  Ludovisi  term  repeats  the  main  features  of  this  type,  but  in 
a later  style,  which  manifests  itself  less  in  the  body  than  in  the  head,  and  which 
seems  to  correspond  to  the  artistic  stage  reached  by  Euphranor.  The  skin  is 
here  slung  round  the  figure,  and  knotted  on  the  shoulder  just  as  in  the  Praxitclean 
Herakles. 

Finally,  it  is  an  important  confirmation  of  our  results  that  the  only  head  of  Paris, 
which  judging  from  copies  and  later  adaptations  enjoyed  a great  reputation,  fits  so 
admirably  into  our  sketch  of  Euphranor’s  art — nay,  belongs  so  entirely  to  the  series 
of  works  we  have  been  discussing,  that  we  are  justified  in  thinking  that  it  goes  back  to 
Euphranor’s  celebrated  work.  The  youthful  face  in  the  Phrygian  cap  5 has  a convinc- 
ing likeness  to  the  Adonis-Apollo  ; and  here  again  the  Peloponnesian  influence  makes 
itself  felt  even  in  the  symmetric  arrangement  of  the  curls  on  the  forehead.  At  the 
back  the  curls  are  twisted,  and  specially  resemble  those  of  the  Dresden  Triptolemos. 
The  original  underwent  adaptations  and  alterations,  but  was  apparently  rarely  copied, 

by  Amelung  make  it  quite  certain  that  it  is  Dionysos.  The  variations  in  the  Lateran  head  (Amelung,  p.  22)  are 
probably  assignable  to  the  copyist.  Amelung  suggested  Praxiteles,  but  the  illustrations  he  gives  are  peculiarly 
instructive,  as  showing  the  finer  points  of  difference  from  Praxiteles. 

1 Lowy,  I.G.B.  501.  Several  such  inscriptions  are  known  : there  is  therefore  no  reason  for  doubting  the 
genuineness  of  this  one. 

2 Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  56,  57.  Cf.  Helbig,  Museums,  861 — 865  ; Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1892,  660. 
These  terminal  figures  are  of  different  date  and  style  (cf.  p.  248,  note  4),  but  mostly  early.  Cf.  a similar  term 
from  Rhamnus,  ’EQwp.  apx . 1891,  Taf.  7. 

3 In  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  2158  seq. 

4 Marble  statuette  (in  the  Roman  market)  preserved  intact  (only  known  tome  from  the  photograph)  ; attitude 
like  the  Stephanos  athlete  ; the  lowered  right  hand  rests  the  dub  on  the  ground,  as  in  the  term  ; bearded  head 
bent  to  the  left  ; hair  like  the  Stephanos  figure  and  the  Olympian  sculptures  ; lion-skin  on  the  outstretched 
forearm.  The  skin  was  probably  absent  in  the  original. 

5 As  the  style  of  this  work  fixes  its  date,  we  can  hardly  be  at  a loss  about  the  interpretation.  Ganymede 
was  as  yet  not  represented  as  a Phrygian,  nor  presumably  was  Attis  (cf.  Samml.  Sabouroff,  Text  to  Taf.  137, 
p.  4 and  Supp.),  but  Paris  was.  A statue  in  Rome  which  may  be  reckoned  among  the  free  later  modifications 
shows  by  the  attributes  that  it  was  meant  for  the  shepherd  Paris  {Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch.  1887,  Taf.  2,  p.  27). 
The  seated  Paris  in  the  Vatican,  conjectured  by  Helbig  ( Museums , 188)  to  be  after  Euphranor,  is  in  conception  and 
form  of  Hellenistico-Roman  origin.  The  figure  seems  to  have  been  adapted  from  a painting  or  a relief.  There 
qve  no  replicas  of  it, 


358 


EUPHRANOR 


which  accounts  for  the  lack  of  unanimity  shown  by  the  extant  examples  in  the  hair 
and  even  in  the  position  of  the  head.  The  most  complete  reproduction  of  the  original 
composition  seems  to  be  the  statue  in  Lansdowne  Mouse  (Fig.  154).1  The  youth 
stands  just  like  the  Polykleitan  ‘Narkissos’  ( supra , Fig.  1 1 5),  except  that  the  sides  arc 
reversed  and  the  legs  crossed.  The  right  hand  is  supported  on  a tree,  the  left  placed 
behind  the  back  ; the  head  looks  downwards  to  the  right.  The  same  pose  appears  in 


Fig.  154. — Paris  in  Lansdowne  House. 


Fig.  155. — Torso  of  Aphrodite  (Naples). 


a head  at  Munich,2  a really  good  copy  ; a head  in  the  Villa  Albani3  differs  somewhat 
in  the  hair.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a statue  at  Copenhagen  4 with  a beautiful 
head  that  corresponds  fairly  closely  to  the  Munich  head,  though  it  is  inclined  in  the 
opposite  direction,5  while  the  attitude  of  the  body  is  unaltered,  and  only  a tree-stem  is 

1 Clarac,  396  E,  664  L ; Michaelis,  p.  447,  39.  Head  broken,  but  genuine.  [Photographed  for  this  edition 
by  kind  permission  of  Lord  Lansdowne. — E.  S.] 

2 Glyptothek,  135;  Liitzow,  Milne hner  Antiken,  27. 

3 No.  218.  The  head  is  placed  on  a statue  foreign  to  it.  Photo,  by  Bruckmann. 

4 Jacobsen  Collection,  No.  1052,  head  unbroken. 

5 Also  the  head  in  the  British  Museum  (Specimens,  ii.  17  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  1580)  is  bent  to  the  left  ; this 
agrees  in  the  hair  most  nearly  with  the  Albani  head, 


PAN— ATHENA 


359 


introduced  at  the  back.  The  pose  of  the  head  of  the  Lansdowne  statue  is  the  more 
natural,  and  certainly  more  likely  to  be  the  original  one.  The  body,  at  any  rate  in 
the  Copenhagen  copy,1  is  closely  related  to  the  Apollo,  and  shows  the  same  cha- 
racteristic broad  smooth  masses.  The  attitude,  while  influenced  by  that  Polykleitan 
prototype,  has  gone  beyond  it  in  the  direction  of  pictorial  nonchalance.  The  complete 
self-absorption  of  the  figure  would  encourage  any  one  with  a turn  for  epigram  to  find 
all  possible  contrasts  united  in  the  figure. 

A feminine  counterpart  of  the  Paris  exists  in  a nude  female  torso  at  Naples 
which  must  have  stood  precisely  in  the  same  attitude  (Fig.  1 5 5)-2  As  far  as  a 
comparison  of  the  figures  is  possible,  the  stylistic  treatment  of  the  body  is  in  all  main 
points  that  of  the  Apollo  and  the  Paris. 

A strong  family  likeness  unites  with  the  preceding  works  another  beautiful  head, 
which  has  already  called  forth  many  a modern  psychological  description  : I refer  to  the 
so-called  ‘ Faun  ’ (Pan)  of  Winckelmann  (Fig.  156),  to  whom  it  once  belonged  (No.  102 
Munich  Glypt.)  The  likeness  of  the  features  to  the  Adonis-Apollo  and  the  youth  at 
Dresden  is  most  striking.  Remains  of  Polykleitan  rendering  of  form  are  also  plainly 
to  be  seen — for  instance,  in  the  close-lying  hair,  and  in  the  incision  at  the  nape  of  the 
neck.  The  figure  which  must  have  belonged  to  this  enchanting  head  should  be  con- 
ceived after  the  fashion  of  the  Dresden  youth  ; the  head  should  be  more  inclined  to 
the  front ; the  eyes  look  to  the  right,  doubtless  to  the  side  of  the  supporting  leg.  1 he 
expression  of  the  head,  as  Brunn  rightly  states,  is  one  of  still  unconscious  but  awaken- 
ing desire — ‘a  soft  enhancement,’  as  Winckelmann  calls  it.  Brunn  considers  the 
‘ Faun  ’ to  be  a pendant  to  the  Praxitelean  Eros,  and  as  a work  by  Euphranor  this  is 
actually  its  historical  position.3 

Moreover,  we  can,  I think,  also  distinguish  among  our  copies  a dignified  goddess 
by  Euphranor.  None  among  the  extant  types  of  Athena  has  been  more  difficult 
to  explain  than  the  so-called  Athena  Giustiniani  (Fig.  157),  of  which  several  replicas 
exist.4  It  contains  a host  of  peculiarities  which  at  first  seem  to  indicate  a fifth- 
century  work,5  side  by  side  with  others  which  point  to  the  fourth.0  The  solution  is 
easy  now  that  we  have  learnt  to  recognize  Euphranor’s  style  ; for  this  statue  also 
belongs  to  the  series  of  his  works. 

Once  more  the  attitude  is  influenced  by  the  early  Hagelaidas  type,  and  is  like 
the  Adonis-Apollo,  except  that  the  right  foot  has  less  weight  thrown  on  it  and  is 
somewhat  drawn  back,  while  the  right  hand  is  supported  on  the  lance.  The  steady 

1 Not  on  the  Lansdowne  copy,  where  the  forms  are  rounder  and  softer. 

2 Friederichs-Wolters,  1468.  Cf.  Bernouilli,  Aphrodite,  p.  279  sqq.  ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  415,  Z.  62  sqq.  The 
left  hand  was  supported  against  the  side,  not  raised  as  in  the  paste  compared  by  Friederichs. 

3 Closely  analogous  to  the  Pan  is  a head  of  a youth  in  the  Jacobsen  Collection,  No.  1095.  Finally,  the 
so-called  Theseus  of  Ince  Blundell  Hall  should  also  be  mentioned  in  the  present  connexion  (Spec,  of  Anc.  Sculpt. 
ii.  19  ; Arch.  Zlg.  1874,  Taf.  1;  Michaelis,  Anc.  Marbles,  p.  351,  43;  cf.  p.  94,  note  1),  the  body  of  which 
seems  to  me  very  like  the  Adonis.  The  attitude  is  the  same.  I have,  however,  not  seen  the  original. 

4 I know  the  following  copies  : (a)  Vatican,  Braccio  Nuovo,  1 14  ; Helbig,  Museums,  5 (.  Aegis  on  the  breast, 
and  snake  below  ; remains  of  the  sphinx  on  the  helmet  are  antique.  Aegis,  snake,  and  sphinx  are  copyist’s  addi- 
tions, and  are  absent  in  b.  ( b ) Capitol,  Helbig,  Museums,  438.  ( c ) Museo  Torlonia,  298.  The  head  and  the  left  hand 
with  the  shield  are  modern  ; with  aegis ; an  interesting  copyist’s  addition  is  the  olive-tree  with  the  snake  (which 
here  replaces  the  lance  and  is  mostly  antique)  touching  the  sleeve  ; the  right  upper  arm  is  raised  higher  than  in 
a and  b,  the  forearm  restored.  Very  late  work.  Cf.  the  similar  copyist’s  invention  of  the  laurel- trunk  beside  the 
Mantuan  Apollo,  (d)  Palazzo  Pilti,  Diitschke,  ii.  28.  Plead  modern  ; aegis  ; poor  work.  ( e ) Naples,  Inv.  6399  ; 
no  aegis;  head  modern,  restored  as  ‘Talia.’  (/)  Good  copy  of  the  head  in  Berlin,  77.  (g)  Plead  in  St. 
Petersburg,  Hermitage,  323  ; much  worked  over  ; poor,  (k)  Plead  in  the  Terme  in  Rome.  Poor,  (i)  Head  on 
the  Cassel  replica  of  the  Lemnia .(supra,  p.  5). 

5 Hence  my  dating  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  702,  1.  5. 

s Helbig  (Museums,  51)  refers  to  an  Attic  relief  of  375 — 374,  which,  however,  bears  only  a superficial 
resemblance  to  the  statue. 


Fig.  156.— ‘The  Faun  of  Winckelmann ’ (Munich). 


ATHENA 


361 

pressure  on  the  left  foot,  the  turn  of  the  head  to  this  side,  and  the  horizontal  projection 
of  the  left  forearm  are  all  part  of  that  early  scheme.  No  convenient  attribute  could 
be  found  for  the  left  hand,  for  it  would  have  been  unsuitable  and  clumsy  to  place 
something  in  it  when  the  right  hand  was  already  holding  the  spear  ; it  only  re- 
mained to  make  it  play  with  the  edge  of  the  cloak.1  The  holding  up  of  the  lance 
involved  a variation  from  the  Argive  scheme  which  required  the  arm  to  be  held 
downwards  ; the  artist  managed  it  by  raising  the  arm  as  quietly  and  slightly  as 
possible,  and  he  arranged  the  wide  sleeves  of  the  Ionic  chiton  so  as  to  fill  the  whole  of 
the  triangle  between  the  elbow  and  the  body  with  vertical  lines.  Thus  the  variation 
from  the  pattern  type  is  compensated  for  and  passes  almost  unnoticed.  The  uniform 
large  surface  which  the  broad  folds  of  the  Ionic  chiton  form  over  the  breast  is 
thoroughly  intentional,  and  contributes  to  the  impression  of  dignified  repose.  The 
aegis,  shown  in  some  copies,  is  a disturbing  addition  made  by  the  copyist  ; it  is 
absent  in  other  copies  whose  evidence  should  be  insisted  on  ; for  copyists,  while  apt 
to  introduce  popular  and  typical  attributes,2  never  left  them  out  if  they  were  to  be 
found  in  the  original.  By  leaving  out  the  aegis  the  artist  seems  to  recall  that  earlier 
type3  of  peaceful  Athena  which  so  often  appears  without  this  attribute.  The  folds  of 
the  chiton,  on  the  other  hand,  only  superficially  resemble  the  fifth-century  manner  ; 
their  real  likeness  is  to  the  drapery  of  the  Praxitelean  Aphrodite  of  Kos  (supra, 
Fig.  138).  The  folds  of  the  cloak  are  treated  in  a simple  and  dignified  fashion  ; 
there  is  even  a severe  touch  about  the  straight  fall  of  the  drapery  over  the  left 
shoulder.  Still  there  is  nothing  clear-cut  or  large  about  them,  and  we  feel  that  they 
are  somewhat  conscious  and  intentional  in  arrangement. 

While  all  this  fits  in  admirably  with  the  works  already  referred  to  Euphranor, 
the  accordance  of  the  head  is  still  more  conclusive.  It  too  has  a purely  superficial 
resemblance — due  mainly  to  the  low  forehead — to  the  types  of  severer  style  ; but  it  has 
none  of  their  harsh  strength,  and  it  finds  its  real  analogy  in  the  Adonis-Apollo  and 
kindred  works,  except  that  it  is  less  kindly  in  expression,  owing  to  the  air  of  dignified 
severity  produced  by  the  slightly  drooping  corners  of  the  mouth.  The  treatment 
of  the  hair,  which  contrasts  with  the  strongly  stylistic  methods  of  the  fifth  century, 
is  related  in  principle  to  the  Dionysos  of  Tivoli ; but  in  arrangement  it  is  almost 
identical  with  that  of  the  Athena  we  assigned  to  Skopas  (supra,  Fig.  130)  ; the  same 
arrangement,  in  conjunction  with  the  ram’s  head  on  the  helmet,  was  seen  in  an 
Athena  head  of  Praxitelean  style  (p.  326).  Another  detail  too  which  definitely  shows 
the  head  to  belong  to  this  later  period  is  the  soft  leathern  lining  showing  under  the 
helmet  at  the  sides  and  at  the  back,  and  which  makes  its  first  appearance  on  Corin- 
thian coins  of  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.4  Lastly,  a good  extrinsic  support  to  our 
statement  that  this  statue  is  referable  to  a Corinthian  artist,  i.e.  to  Euphranor,  is 
afforded  by  the  tiny  roll-shaped  attachments  which  form  the  uncommon  decoration 
of  the  plumeless  helmet  ; 5 they  are  exclusively  a characteristic  of  Athena’s  helmet  on 
Corinthian  coins  of  the  fourth  century,  and  hardly  ever  appear  elsewhere.  1 hus 

1 This  motive,  as  also  the  attitude  and  fall  of  drapery,  has  been  used  by  the  artist  who  made  the  statue  ox 
Antinoos  in  the  Eleusis  Museum. 

2 Like  snake  and  olive-tree  in  a and  c. 

3 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  697,  1.  6 ; Preller- Robert,  Griech.  My t hoi.  i.  191,  note  3. 

4 First  in  the  new,  quite  free  style,  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Coins,  Corinth,  PI.  2,  21  ; PI.  3 S(H< 

5 In  the  Berlin  copy  of  the  head  they  are  preserved  on  both  sides,  just  in  the  place  where  they  appear  on  the 
Corinthian  coins.  In  the  original,  as  the  coins  show,  there  must  have  been  a similar  roll  on  the  top  of  the  helmet. 
The  sphinx,  shown  in  the  Vatican  copy,  is  certainly  an  addition  of  the  copyist  ; in  the  Capitoline  and  Berlin  heads 
the  helmet  is  smooth  above. 

3 A 


Fig.  157. — Athena  Giustiniani  (Braccio  Nuovo,  Vatican). 


SOSTRATOS— LYSIPPOS 


363 


Euphranor  took  his  native  Corinthian  type  of  Athena  with  all  its  details  as  the 
basis  of  his  creation. 

Finally,  when  we  call  to  mind  that  there  was  a celebrated  statue  of  Athena  by 
Euphranor  dedicated  below  the  Capitol 1 which  must  certainly  have  been  copied,  we 
shall  have  no  hesitation  in  considering  it  to  have  been  the  original  of  the  Giustiniani 
type. 

This  Athena,  like  the  Apollo  Patroos,  would  belong  to  Euphranor’ s earlier  period, 
even  as  the  Dionysos  and  the  works  akin  to  it  belong  to  the  later.  The  older  group  is 
intimately  connected  with  the  earlier  works  of  Praxiteles  and  also  of  Skopas.  But 
Euphranor  never  got  beyond  that  clinging  to  the  types  of  the  Argive  school  which 
with  his  two  contemporaries  was  only  a transient  phase.  He  was  obviously  a man 
of  formulas  ; not  a strong,  fiery  nature,  but  thoughtful  and  quiet,  docilis  ac  laboriosus, 
active  and  versatile — doubtless  capable  of  exquisite  invention,  in  dependence  upon 
older  types,  but  evidently  lacking  the  freshness  of  inspiration  or  the  inexhaustible 
fantasy  of  a Skopas  or  a Praxiteles.2 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  Euphranor  ever  adopted  that  roundness 
of  modelling  and  that  expressive  formation  of  the  eye  and  its  adjacent  parts  which 
mark  the  style  of  Skopas  and  Praxiteles  in  their  later  period.  It  seems  probable 
that  Euphranor  remained  conservative,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  he  assimilated  much 
of  this  newer  method.  A statue  of  a youth  in  the  Capitoline  Museum3  is  of  interest 
in  this  connexion.  It  is  most  closely  and  indubitably  connected  with  the  later 
creations  of  Euphranor,  such  as  the  Sabouroff  Apollo  and  kindred  works.  The 
attitude  is  the  same  ( i.e . it  is  that  of  the  Idolino),  so  is  the  position  of  the  arms  and  of 
the  head.  But  the  body  is  modelled  in  a perfectly  round,  smooth  manner,  with  soft 
undulations  of  surface  ; the  head  is  appreciably  smaller,  and  shows  in  forehead,  eyes, 
and  the  whole  formation  of  the  face  and  hair  a style  similar  to  that  of  the  later 
Praxitelean  or  even  of  Lysippian  heads.  It  is  quite  plain  that  we  have  before  us 
the  last  outcome  of  Euphranor’s  art,  though  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  artist  himselt 
lived  to  accomplish  this  progress.  The  small  head  makes  this  improbable,  but  his 
son  Sostratos,  a contemporary  of  Lysippos,  might  very  well  have  worked  in  this 
manner.  A youthful  Hermes  (Dresden),4  with  wings  fastened  to  his  fillet,  is  related 
to  the  Capitoline  statue. 

The  coming  dominion  of  the  Lysippian  style  soon  pushed  to  one  side  these 
offshoots  of  Euphranor’s  art.  While  Euphranor  clung  to  the  old  Argive  types,  and 
to  the  less  intense  Polykleitan  creations,  Lysippos  broke  away  entirely  from  these 
traditions.  He  certainly  studied  the  old  masters  to  a certain  extent — nay,  he  called 
the  Doryphoros  his  master,  and  how  he  adapted  it  we  may  still  conjecture  from  the 
monuments  5 — yet  by  giving  himself  up  entirely  to  the  novel,  energetic  motives  which 
Skopas  had  introduced  he  infused  new  blood  into  the  stagnating  Peloponnesian  art. 


1 Plin.  xxxiv.  77.  The  statue  was  called  the  Minerva  Catuliana,  as  it  was  set  up  by  A.  Lutatius  Catulus, 
who  after  the  fire  of  83  b.c.  dedicated  the  newly  rebuilt  Capitoline  temple  with  great  splendour. 

2 Plutarch’s  information  that  Euphranor  painted  the  cavalry  engagement  at  Mantineia  in  a very  lifelike 
manner  is  naturally  quite  reconcilable  with  this  view. 

3 Salone  12.  Photographs  of  the  head  by  Bruckmann.  Head  unbroken  ; right  arm,  left  hand,  legs,  and 

support  restored.  Right  supporting  leg,  left  thigh  turned  slightly  out  ; the  head,  with  short  hair,  looks  out 

quietly  towards  the  right. 

4 Hettner,  1 5 1 ; Becker,  August.  PI.  42.  Poor  execution.  Attitude  as  in  statues  discussed  above  ; chlamys 

on  left  shoulder  ; head  with  short  hair  turned  to  right  ; fillet  supporting  antique  small  wings. 

5 The  Herakles  statue  of  the  Museo  Chiaramonti,  No.  294,  shows  an  interesting  combination  of  the  proportions 
and  forms  of  the  Doryphoros  with  the  Lysippian  realistic  rendering  of  form.  The  pose  of  the  head  just  differs 
slightly,  inasmuch  as  it  is  turned  a little  toward  the  other  side  (the  neck  seems  to  be  rightly  restored) ; the  head 


364 


EUPHRANOR 


It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  the  aforementioned  Capitolinc  statue  a Lysippian 
statue  of  a youth,  at  Berlin,1  that  tallies  with  it  exactly  as  regards  age  and  pose. 
Although  it  is  in  more  complete  repose  than  any  other  Lysippian  figure  known  to  me, 
yet  the  comparison  forcibly  brings  out  the  stronger  stir  of  life  in  head  and  limbs. 
How  much  stronger  therefore  will  it  not  appear  in  those  Lysippian  figures,  whether  of 
gods  or  athletes,2  which  are  represented  in  active  movement. 

Still  we  must  confess  that  Euphranor  infused  an  inner  meaning  into  the  old 
Peloponnesian  types,  whilst  Lysippos  externalized  the  inner  conceptions  of  Skopas. 
In  the  art  of  Lysippos  lay  the  beginning  of  the  pathetic  style,  which  spread  to  such 
an  extent  in  Hellenistic  times. 

is  of  the  bearded  Lysippian  type.  It  seems  to  me  not  improbable  that  Lysippos  himself  used  the  canon  of  Poly- 
kleitos  in  this  way,  adapting  it  in  his  own  manner.  His  procedure  would  be  the  same  as  when  Rubens  copied  an 
older  work. 

1 Skulpt.  471.  The  body,  without  pubes,  is  analogous  to  the  youth  of  the  Capitol.  The  attitude  and  head 
are  quite  Lysippian.  This  is  doubtless  a copy  of  an  athlete  by  Lysippos. 

" The  majestic  motive  of  resting  the  hand  high  on  the  sceptre,  seen  in  the  greater  gods,  was  invested  with  a 
pathetic  character  by  Lysippos,  who  made  the  hand  grasp  the  staff  higher  up.  Cf.  the  rock-relief  from  Alyzia, 
where  Lysippos  worked,  Heuzey,  Olympe  et  Acarnan.  pi.  12,  p.  412  (cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2173,  line  33),  and  the 
same  figure  used  as  a symbol  on  an  Athenian  coin,  Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  pi.  EE.  13.  The 
same  motive  is  shown  in  the  large  bronze  statue  (Ant.  Denkm.  i.  5 ; Helbig,  Museums , 965),  which,  as  Rossbach 
has  recognized,  represents  Alexander  Balas  ; I think,  however,  that  the  motive  of  this  statue  is  only  borrowed  from 
the  famous  Alexander  with  the  spear  by  Lysippos.  As  regards  athletes  in  motion  by  Lysippos,  the  two  statues  in 
Dresden  (Hettner,  245,  246)  are  worthy  of  special  notice.  The  beardless  head  is  surprisingly  similar  to  that  of  the 
sandal-binder  of  the  Akropolis  (Ath.  Mitth.  1886,  Taf.  9,  1).  A head  analogous  to  the  bearded  one,  but  much 
more  beautiful,  is  in  the  Jacobsen  collection  at  Copenhagen  (No.  1072) ; it  belongs  to  an  athlete  in  similar  motion, 
and  is  one  of  the  finest  and  most  purely  Lysippian  works  in  existence.  It  probably  belongs  to  an  earlier  period  of 
the  artist  than  the  Apoxyomenos,  for  the  hair  is  flatter,  and  worked  in  an  older  manner. 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


T HE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


BY  subjecting  the  famous  statue  from  Melos 
in  the  Louvre  to  a fresh  critical  examina- 
tion, we  shall,  at  the  same  time,  have 
occasion  for  enlarging  and  extending  in  more 
than  one  direction  the  knowledge  we  have  gained 
in  the  preceding  essay  of  the  art  of  Skopas  and 
Praxiteles. 

The  ‘Venus  of  Milo’  is  still  a centre  of  eager 
controversy,  and  only  recently  a distinguished  archae- 
ologist pronounced  the  whole  question  to  be  an 
insoluble  riddle.1  Before  resigning  myself  to  this 
conclusion,  I should  like  to  be  sure  that  no  means  of 
solution  has  been  left  untried.  Since  questions  of 
very  great  interest  in  the  history  of  art  arise  in 
connexion  with  this  statue,  it  will  be  well  to  see 
what  further  light  can  be  obtained  from  a sober  and  unbiassed  examination 
both  of  facts  and  of  tradition. 


I.  The  Lost  Inscribed  Fragment : Discussion  0/  the  Statue’s  Provenance. 

Our  first  inquiry  must  be  concerning  the  fragments  belonging  to  the  statue. 
It  is  now  almost  universally  acknowledged  that  a left  upper  arm  and  a hand 
holding  an  apple,  which  were  found  with  the  Venus,  really  belong  to  it.  Even 

F.  Ravaisson,  the  author  of  the  most  recent  reconstruction,  admits  this  fact,  although 

] Sal.  Reinach,  in  the  Gaz.  des  Beaux- Arts,  1890,  i.  376  sqq.  Among  the  more  recent  literature  on  the 
subject  the  following  may  be  mentioned  : F.  Ravaisson,  in  the  Revue  Arch.  1890,  t.  xv.  p.  145  sqq.  ; criticism  of  the 
same  by  Sal.  Reinach  in  the  Chronique  des  Arts , 1890,  p.  294  ; F.  Ravaisson,  La  Vdntts  de  Milo  (extract  from  Mem. 
de  V Academie  des  Laser.  et  Belles-Lettres , tome  xxxiv.  1),  Paris  1892  ; my  review  of  the  same  in  the  Berliner 
Philol.  Woclienschrift , 1893,  1107.  Less  recent  works  are:  Saloman,  Die  Plinthe  der  Venus  von  Milo , 1S84  ; 
Lowy,  L.  G.  B.  (1885),  p.  209  sqq.  ; Wolters,  Gipsahg.  (1885),  p.  560  sqq.-,  W.  Henke  in  Liitzow’s  Zeitschr.  f.  hi/d. 
Kunst,  1886,  p.  194,  222,  257  ; Overbeck  in  the  Remmtiationsprogramm  der  Phil.  Facultdt,  Leipzig  18S7, 
Archdol.  Miscellea.  vi.  ‘Die  Plinthe  der  A.  v.  M.’ ; Heydemann,  Pariser  Antiken  (1887),  p.  5 ; Sal.  Reinach, 
Esquisses  Archdol.  1888  ; Chron.  d' Orient  (1888),  p.  465  sqq.,  699  seq.  ; 1893,  p.  35  ; Schreiber  in  IAtter.  Central- 
blatt,  1888,  1687  ; Valentin,  Kunst,  Kiinstler,  und  Kunstwerke  (1889),  p.  219,  313  ; Haberlin,  Studien  zur 
Aphr.  von  Melos,  18S9  ; Kroker  in  Festschrift fitr  Overbeck,  1893,  p.  45  (‘  Die  Iinke  Hand  der  A.  v.  M.’)  Finally, 
my  own  short  discussion  of  the  question  written  in  1882  for  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i.  414  seq.,  embodying  part  of  the 
material  of  the  present  chapter,  but  requiring  correction  in  some  points.  The  theory  recently  put  forward  by 
Mironoff,  that  the  Venus  of  Milo  was  a Victory,  has  been  thoroughly  disproved  by  Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.  1894, 
p.  91  seq. 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


368 

it  is  unfavourable  to  his  theory  that  the  figure  formed  part  of  a group.1  The  left  upper 
arm  must  belong  to  the  statue,  for  it  contains  a dowel-hole  exactly  corresponding  to 
one  in  the  torso.  T he  hand  with  the  apple  matches  the  fragment  of  arm  in  scale, 
material,  and  technique,  in  the  traces  of  weathering,  and  in  the  marks  of  breakage:2 
evidently  it  must  belong  to  the  same  figure  as  the  arm.  These  facts  may  be  regarded 
as  settled  on  technical  grounds  apart  from  any  aesthetic  considerations.  It  is  true 
that  the  two  fragments  show  poorer  workmanship  than  the  main  parts  of  the  statue,3 
but  this  must  not  be  taken  as  contrary  evidence,  for  in  ancient  marble  statues  the 
extremities  are  not  unfrequently  neglected,  especially  if  they  were  to  be  as  distant 
from  the  spectator’s  eye  as  the  left  hand  of  this  statue. 

The  fragment  of  plinth  with  the  artist’s  inscription  offers  a much  more  difficult 
problem,  because,  as  is  well  known,  the  original  has  disappeared.  It  is  not,  however, 
by  ignoring  or  by  concealing  it  that  we  can  make  good  this  loss,  the  sin  of  an  earlier 
generation.  Indeed,  the  evidence,  if  fairly  weighed,  leads  inevitably  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  lost  inscribed  fragment  originally  belonged  to  the  plinth — a view  recently 
maintained  by  Overbeck,  by  Geskel  Saloman,  and  by  H.  Hcydemann.  One  ascertained 
fact  must  be  borne  in  mind  : when  the  statue  and  the  separate  pieces  were  brought 
to  the  Louvre  and  the  first  attempts  (quite  unbiassed  by  preconceived  theories)  were 
made  to  put  them  together,  it  was  at  once  noticed  that  the  inscribed  fragment  exactly 
fitted  the  breakage  on  the  right  side  of  the  plinth,  nor  did  any  of  the  witnesses  present 
— savants  like  Clarac,  Quatremere  de  Quincy,  and  Saint-Victor  among  them — ever 
express  the  smallest  doubt  as  to  this,  or  suggest  that  the  inscribed  fragment  did 
not  fit.  It  must  therefore  have  appeared  quite  obvious  that  the  inscribed  piece 
belonged  to  the  statue.  Another  question,  however,  was  immediately  raised  : Did 

it  form  part  of  the  original  work,  or  was  it  an  antique  restoration  ? They 
decided  for  the  latter,  but  were  not  agreed  as  to  how  this  restoration  had  come 
about.  Clarac  believed  quite  simply  that  the  inscription  gave  the  name  of  the  real 
artist,  while  Quatremere  de  Quincy  conjectured  that  the  plinth  had  been  mended 
with  a chance  piece  of  marble  which  happened  to  be  inscribed.4  Quatremere  could 
not  bring  himself  to  believe  that  the  inscription  was  that  of  the  real  artist,  and 
therefore  invented  this  far-fetched  hypothesis.  He  would  never  have  done  this  had 
he  been  able  to  discover  the  least  imperfection  in  the  fit  of  the  two  pieces. 
Therefore  the  theory  lately  urged,  that  if  the  inscription  had  really  fitted  it  would 
have  been  fastened  on  and  would  be  there  to  this  day,  is  absolutely  unwarrantable.5 
But  it  is  very  easy  to  see  why  the  piece  was  not  fastened  on,  and  why  it  disappeared. 
In  the  first  place,  since  it  was  believed  to  be  merely  a later  addition,  it  was  neglected 
as  of  no  consequence  for  the  original  composition.  Secondly,  the  late  obscure  artist 
named  in  the  inscription  could  not  possibly,  it  was  supposed,  have  made  the  statue. 
Thirdly,  since  the  statue  was  to  be  presented  to  the  king  as  a work  of  Praxiteles  (see 

1 Eavaisson  makes  the  hand  rest  on  the  shoulder  of  a male  figure  grouped  with  the  Venus.  If  this  were  so, 
the  short  muscle  in  the  palm  of  the  hand  would  appear  flattened  by  the  contact,  which  is  not  the  case. 

2 The  restorer  Lange’s  remark  (quoted  by  Ravaisson,  V.  de  Milo,  1892,  p.  55)  is  specially  important.  He 
notices  that  the  traces  of  weathering  on  the  upper  side  of  the  hand  are  a continuation  of  those  on  the  upper  side 
of  the  arm. 

3 Besides  this,  Henke  (loc.  at.)  has  shown  that  there  are  parts  of  the  torso  which  are  not  worked  any  better 
than  the  hand.  So  Ravaisson  and  Kroker  (loc.  cit .) 

4 F.  Ravaisson  has  lately  repeated  this  conjecture  ( Vdnus  de  Milo,  1892,  p.  52)>  therefore  he  too  must 

believe  that  the  piece  belongs  to  the  statue.  He  does  not,  however,  deign  to  explain  how  it  happened  that  the 
Mars  or  Theseus  grouped  with  the  Venus  came  to  disappear  (without  however  the  hand  with  the  apple  that 
rested  upon  his  shoulder  also  disappearing  !),  and  to  be  replaced  by  a little  terminal  figure  with  an  inscribed  basis 
picked  up  anywhere.  5 Sal.  Reinach,  Gas.  des  Beaux- Aids,  1890,  i.  3^4' 


THE  LOST  FRAGMENT  369 

Adr.  dc  Longperier’s  famous  letter  on  the  subject  in  Friederichs,  Bausteine),  it  would 
naturally  be  inconvenient  to  have  to  affix  to  it  the  name  of  an  unknown  sculptor. 

1 he  disappearance  of  the  inscription,  in  my  opinion,  is  only  a proof  of  its 
genuineness.1  It  was  an  awkward  witness,  and  had  to  be  quietly  got  out  of  the  way. 
A letter  from  Clarac  to  Forbin,  published  by  Ravaisson  ( Venus  de  Milo , 1871,  p.  22), 
throws  a startling  light  on  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  Louvre  at  that  time.  Clarac, 
although  ‘ Conservateur  du  Musee  Royal  des  Antiques,’ was  excluded  from  the  con- 
sultation that  took  place  concerning  the  setting  up  of  the  figure,  his  ‘notice’  on  the 
statue  never  reached  the  king,  the  statue  was  set  up  clandestinely  and  hastily2 — all 
this  doubtless  to  suppress  Clarac’s  unwelcome  opinion  that  the  inscription,  although 
added  later,  gave  the  real  name  of  the  artist. 

Now  this  theory  of  an  antique  restoration,  which  alone  prevented  Ouatremere 
and  Clarac  from  seeing  that  the  inscription  had  belonged  to  the  statue  from  the 
beginning,  was  quite  arbitrary,  and  undoubtedly  false.  It  arose  solely  from  ignorance 
of  the  technique  of  ancient  marble  statuary.  Nowadays  everybody  knows  that  Greek 
originals  may  often  be  distinguished  from  Roman  copies  by  the  very  fact  that  they 
are  pieced  together.  In  the  best  period  artists  were  very  economical  with  their  marble. 
The  practice  of  accurately  piecing  marble  together  was  already  very  general  among 
the  artists  of  the  second  half  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.  At  a later  date  it  may  be 
observed  in  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles,  and  it  was  still  more  widespread  in  the  period 
after  Alexander  ; instances  are  the  Nike  of  Samothrake,  some  of  the  Pergamene  figures, 
the  Belvedere  torso,  and  other  works  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  B.C.,  men- 
tioned by  Tarral  ( apud  Golcr  von  Ravensburg,  Venus  v.  Milo,  p.  3/).3  It  is  among 
the  last-named  works  that  the  technique  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  finds  its  nearest 
parallel.1  Not  only  were  the  upper  and  lower  parts  of  the  torso  made  separately 
and  then  put  together,  but  also  the  left  arm,  the  left  foot,  and  a piece  of  the  right  hip.5 

To  reject  any  one  of  these  pieces  because  it  does  not  suit  our  theories  or  taste  is 
purely  arbitrary,  and  if  we  carried  the  method  to  its  logical  conclusion  we  should 
accept  only  one  piece  as  original,  while  all  the  rest  would  be  put  down  as  later 
additions,  a manifest  absurdity  that  no  one  has  yet  ventured  upon.6  Knowing,  then, 
that  the  original  statue  was  made  of  different  pieces,  we  shall  require  definite  proof 
before  allowing  that  any  one  of  the  pieces  is  a restoration. 

It  is  true  that  the  var  ous  pieces  of  marble  are  not  all  of  the  same  quality,  but 
this  is  no  proof  that  they  did  not  originally  belong  together.  In  other  statues 
made  up  of  several  blocks  it  is  not  unusual  to  detect  strong  differences  in  the  marble, 
especially  between  head  and  torso.  Therefore  Clarac’s  assertion  that  the  inscribed 
fragment  is  of  a marble  ‘ un  peu  different’ — ‘ d’un  grain  un  peu  plus  gros  ’ than 
the  rest  of  the  basis  is  no  argument  against  its  genuineness,  especially  as  it  has  been 
observed  that  the  upper  part  of  the  body  is  made  of  a different  marble  from  the 
lower.7 

1 This  is  rightly  emphasized  by  E.  Robinson,  Catalogue  of  the  Casts  from  Greek  and  Roman  Sculpture,  Boston 
1887,  p.  92  ; 1891,  p.  253. 

2 Ravaisson,  loc.  cit. 

3 Cf.  also  Saloman,  Plinthe,  p.  17. 

4 Cf.  Arch.  Ztg.  1881,  p.  306,  and  Collignon  in  Rev.  Archlol.  1888,  i.  p.  294. 

5 The  joined  piece  of  the  right  hip  can  be  clearly  seen  on  the  new  casts,  and  in  Ravaisson’s  Vinus  de  Milo, 
Plates  I.  and  II.  1871.  Clarac  ( Vinus  Viclrix,  p.  23)  and  Ravaisson  (loc.  cit.  p.  10)  are  wrong  in  supposing  it  a 
restoration. 

6 Clarac  ( Vinos  Viclrix,  p.  13)  was  at  first  inclined  to  consider  the  lower  half  of  the  body  as  a restoration) 
but  on  closer  examination  he  changed  his  view. 

7 Des  Cloiseaux  apud  Ravaisson,  Vinus  de  Milo,  1S71,  p.  67. 

3 B 


370 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


On  the  other  hand,  although  the  inscribed  fragment  is  lost,  the  part  of  the 
plinth  still  extant  shows  that  a piece  is  missing  to  which  the  lost  inscribed  block 
exactly  corresponds.  There  is  therefore  not  the  smallest  ground  for  doubting  the 
testimony  of  those  first  eyewitnesses  who,  in  spite  of  their  preconceived  theories, 
accepted  the  inscribed  block  as  part  of  the  plinth. 

Since  casts  have  recently  been  taken  of  the  ‘ Venus  ’ without  the  restorations 
(Fig.  158))  anyone  can  easily  convince  themselves  that  the  plinth,  like  the  whole 
statue,  was  put  together  out  of  different  pieces.1  The  block  of  marble  was  insufficient, 

and  the  plinth  had  to  be  continued 
to  the  right  by  joining  on  a piece. 
To  the  right  of  the  existing  plinth 
there  is  a slanting  contact-surface 
worked  smooth  at  the  upper  edge, 
and  it  is  plain  also  that  the  piece 
adjusted  to  the  right  must  have  been 
higher  than  the  rest  of  the  plinth. 
Now  those  first  eyewitnesses,  and 
Debay’s  drawing,  which  we  still  pos- 
sess (Fig.  159),  prove  that  the  lost 
piece  of  marble  had  a slanting  sur- 
face to  its  left,  exactly  corresponding 
to  the  surface  on  the  existing  plinth, 
and  that  it  was  of  the  desired  height. 

Geskel  Saloman,  in  his  treatise 
on  the  Plinth  of  the  Venus  of  Milo 
(p.  30),  described  carefully  and  in 
detail  the  marks  on  the  existing  por- 
tion of  the  plinth,  and  my  own  ex- 
amination confirms  his  results  in  all 
essential  particulars.  Yet  his  exposi- 
tion docs  not  quite  account  for  certain 
difficulties  which  arise  on  closer  con- 
sideration. I therefore  consulted  the 
sculptors  who  have  been  working  at 
the  reconstruction  of  the  Pergamene  frieze — MM.  Possenti  and  Freres — in  Berlin, 
and  with  their  help  arrived  at  the  following  results. 

Needless  to  say  that  Overbeck's  restoration,  made  before  the  real  shape  of  the 
plinth  was  known,  must  be  wrong,2  because  it  gives  a false  distorted  turn  to  the  left 
foot  ; this  foot  must  have  projected  beyond  the  edge  of  the  plinth.  Tarral’s  restoration 
(Golcr  von  Ravensburg,  pi.  4)  is  also  wrong,  because  it  contradicts  Debay’s  drawing 
(Fig.  159)  by  placing  the  inscribed  piece  too  far  to  the  right.  Saloman,  Overbeck, 
and  Ravaisson 3 maintained,  but  incorrectly,  that  the  existing  plinth  was  let  into  a 
second  plinth.  This  was  often  done  in  the  case  of  marble  statues,  but  not  in  this 
particular  instance.  There  could  not  have  been  a plinth  at  the  back,  because  the 
perpendicular  surface  of  the  existing  plinth  is  neatly  finished  off,  and  the  folds  of  drapery 

1 The  supposition  of  Valentin  (Kunst,  Kiinstler,  und  Kunslwerke , p.  321),  that  the  plinth  was  put  together  for 
the  first  time  in  modern  times — actually  in  the  Louvre — is  refuted  by  the  appearance  of  the  plinth. 

- Gcsch.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  vol.  ii.  p.  331. 

3 Saloman,  p.  36  ; Ravaisson,  V d.  J/.  1S92,  p.  53. 


THE  LOST  FRAGMENT 


371 


on  the  left  (of  the  spectator)  are  worked  right  down  to  the  ground.  The  left  perpen- 
dicular face  (looked  at  from  the  front),  like  the  back  of  the  plinth,  is  smoothly 
finished,  and  therefore  also  intended  to  be  visible.  For  it  is  well  known  that  the  faces 
of  plinths  intended  for  insertion  were  left  rough.  But  the  front  face  appears  not  to 
correspond  ; it  cannot  possibly  have  been  visible,  nor  can  the  front  of  the  inscribed 
block  have  formed  a continuation  to  it.  Something  must  have  been  fastened  on 
in  front  of  it.  1 he  manner  in  which  it  is  prepared  with  a smooth  edge,  top  and 
bottom,  is  precisely  that  of  a tooled  contact-surface,  and  excludes  every  other  inter- 
pretation. 1 1 o complete  the  rectangular  plan,  as  Possenti  showed  me,  the  lost  piece 

must  have  been  wedge-shaped  (Fig.  160). 

The  inscribed  block  need  not  have  stood  more  than  a very  little  farther  forward 
(i  cm.,  according  to  Possenti,  meets  the  technical  requirements)  than  the  existing 
plinth.  Clarac’s  statement 
( Venus  Victrix , p.  49),  that  the 
fragment  lay  ‘ bien  juste  dans 
l’alignement  de  la  surface  an- 
terieure  de  l’ancienne  plinthe,’ 
is  therefore  not  quite  correct, 
but  the  mistake  is  easily  under- 
stood. The  deviation  of  plane 
is  so  slight  as  to  be  easily  passed 
over  ; indeed,  the  left-hand  edge 
of  the  inscribed  block  on  which 
the  thin  wedge-shaped  piece 
joined  on  in  the  front  abutted, 
seems,  as  Debay’s  drawing 
shows,  to  have  been  injured. 

Besides,  Clarac’s  remark  is  not 
made  in  the  course  of  a scien- 
tific description,  but  in  a rhe- 
torical period  in  which  he  is 
attempting  to  prove,  not  that  the  inscribed  piece  fitted,  which  nobody  doubted,  but  that 
the  inscription  was  there  not  by  accident  but  by  intention,  and  that  it  really  gave  the 
artist’s  name.  Clarac’s  inexactness  of  wording  is  shown  by  another  undoubted  in- 
stance in  the  very  same  sentence.  What  he  called  ‘ fractures  ’ are  really,  as  Ouatre- 
mere  and  Saint-Victor  rightly  maintained,  contact-surfaces.  Debay’s  drawing  does 
not  show  the  front  of  the  plinth  as  a junction-surface.  It  has  been  drawn  smooth, 
possibly  because  it  looked  better  so  ; hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  Debay  also 
overlooked  the  divergence  in  plane  between  the  two  front  surfaces. 

If,  as  seems  likely,  the  wedge-shaped  piece  put  on  in  front  was  of  the  same 
marble  as  the  inscribed  block,  then  the  whole  front  of  the  plinth  was  originally 
uniform  in  material.  Therefore  there  is  nothing  in  the  condition  of  the  extant 
fragments  against  the  genuineness  of  the  inscribed  block.  On  the  contrary,  several 
circumstances  afford  proof  positive  that  the  missing  piece  of  plinth  must  have  been 

1 Overbeck’s  assumption  ( Leipz . Renuntiationsprogr. , loc.  cit.),  that  the  plinth  was  sunk  in  another  up  to  the 
smoothed  edge  of  the  front  surface,  is  contradicted  by  the  fact  that  the  back  and  left  side  are  smoothly  finished. 
Ravaisson  ( V.  d.  M.  1892,  p.  54)  recognized  the  original  existence  of  a separate  piece  of  marble  in  front  of  the 
plinth,  but  by  his  hypothesis  of  a large  ‘ fausse  plinthe  ’ he  completely  ignored  the  finished  state  of  the  back  and 
left  side. 


Fig.  159. — Drawing  by  Debay,  showing  the  inscribed  block  adjusted 
to  the  plinth. 


372 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


just  such  a piece  as  Debay’s  drawing  and  the  evidence  of  the  eyewitnesses  attest  the 
lost  inscribed  block  to  have  been. 

We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  missing  piece  had  a slanting  contact- 
surface,  and  must  have  been  higher  than  the  existing  plinth.  This  extra  height  may 
be  calculated  from  the  remaining  portion.  On  the  outer  side  of  the  left  foot  of  the 
figure  are  to  be  seen  (a  on  Figs.  1 6 1 , 162)  the  remains  of  a small  horizontal  plane 
surface  hitherto  unnoticed,  which  must  have  been  continued  in  the  piece  of  plinth 
added  on.  Now  this  plane  is  exactly  level  with  the  height  of  the  inscribed  block  in 


Debay’s  drawing  ; it  is  considerably  lower  than  a horizontal  plane  at  the  level  of  the 
heel  of  the  left  foot  would  be,  as  may  be  easily  calculated  from  the  remains  of  the 
ankle  visible  through  the  drapery.  Hence  the  foot,  the  front  and  larger  portion  of 
which  was,  as  is  well  known,  made  of  a separate  piece,  must  have  sloped  down- 
wards in  a slanting  direction.1  The  small  fragment  of  Hat  surface  a gives  the  level 
where  the  foot  rested,  and  this  is  the  level  of  the  inscribed  block.  The  ends  of  the 
folds  of  drapery  behind  the  foot  turn  up  just  at  the  same  level,  showing  that  at  that 

1 Cf.  Saloman,  Plinthe , 37  ; Overbeck,  loc.  cit. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  PLINTH 


373 


point  they  touched  the  ground.  The  actual  edge  of  the  drapery  is  not  preserved, 
but  the  smoothly  worked  contact-surface  b shows  that  the  missing  edge  of  drapery 
was  made  of  a small  piece  of  marble  inserted  between  the  torso  and  the  additional 
piece  of  basis.  This  was  done,  Possenti  informs  me,  because  the  edge  of  the  drapery 
worked  in  one  piece  with  the  torso  would  not  have  afforded  a solid  enough  termination 
to  the  block. 

The  lost  portion  of  the  plinth  cannot  possibly  have  formed  the  support  fora  male 
figure  grouped  with  Aphrodite,  as  Ravaisson  has  again  recently  suggested — first, 
because  it  was  higher  than  the  part  which  supports  the  female  figure,  and  the  man  could 
not  possibly  be  placed  on  a higher  basis  than  the  woman  ; and  secondly,  because 
it  did  not  reach  to  the  back  of  the  existing  plinth,  and  was  therefore  only  large 
enough  for  a smaller  object.  This  is  evident  from  the  appearance  of  the  contact- 
surface,  which  comes  to  an  end  before  it  reaches  the  back  of  the  plinth  (cf.  the 
side  view  of  the  plinth,  Fig.  1 6 1 , where  the  slanting  hatchings  mark  the  smoothly 
worked  portion  of  the  contact-surface). 

Again,  the  drapery  at  the  back  does  not  turn 
up  as  in  front,  where  it  met  the  higher  ad- 
ditional piece  of  plinth,  but  falls  right  down 
to  the  lower  edge  of  the  plinth.  The  in- 
scribed piece  drawn  by  Debay  satisfies 
these  conditions  in  so  far  that  the  rect- 
angular hole  visible  on  the  upper  surface 
shows  distinctly  that  it  was  only  destined 
to  support  some  small  pillar-shaped  object. 

On  the  other  hand,  Debay  has  placed  the 
line  terminating  the  plinth  at  the  back  too 
high,  probably  with  the  intention  of  im- 
proving the  appearance  of  the  whole  plinth  : 
evidently  for  the  same  reason  he  also,  as  is 
well  known,  drew  the  existing  plinth  con- 
siderably higher  than  it  really  is.1  In  our 
Fig.  160  the  added  piece  is  made  to  end 
at  the  back  where  the  smoothed  edge  of 
the  existing  plinth  ceases  completely  ; the  end  must  have  sloped  down  somewhat 
at  the  back,  as  shown  in  Fig.  1 6 1 . 

Finally,  the  ends  of  folds  turning  up  behind  the  foot,  the  remains  of  the  horizontal 
surface  rr,  and  the  vertical  surface  on  the  inner  side  of  the  left  foot2  make  it  absolutely 
certain  that  the  left  foot  was  placed  not  on  a round  object  but  on  a flat  tectonic 
surface  like  the  fragment  sketched  by  Debay. 

Since,  then,  the  extant  remains  of  the  basis  point  quite  positively  to  a con- 
tinuation shaped  precisely  like  the  inscribed  fragment  drawn  by  Debay,  it  becomes 
impossible  even  for  the  most  sceptical  to  doubt  the  original  authenticity  of  this  frag- 
ment, whose  exact  correspondence,  at  the  time  when  it  was  still  extant,  was  not 
disputed  even  by  those  who  would  have  welcomed  every  opportunity  for  doubt. 

The  front  of  the  plinth  thus  consisted  of  two  parts — the  longer  and  lower  to  the 
left,  the  shorter  and  higher  to  the  right.  On  either  of  these  the  artist  could  have  cut 

1 The  correction  of  this  error  naturally  brings  the  inscription  somewhat  nearer  the  lower  edge. 

2 Saloman,  Plinthe,  p.  37,  and  Overbeck,  loc.  cit.  I should  like  to  add  further  that  the  rounded  hollow  (c  on 
our  sketch)  above  this  vertical  edge,  which  must  necessarily  have  belonged  to  a tectonic  member,  is  not  part  of  the 
horizontal  surface  of  that  member,  but  merely  belongs  to  a fold  of  drapery. 


374 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


his  inscription.  He  chose  the  right-hand  surface,  probably  because  it  was  of  a more 
convenient  shape,  and  because  it  formed  the  front  of  a solid  block  instead  of  being 
merely  a thin  added  piece  like  the  left-hand  wedge.  As  a rule,  inscriptions  which  are 
cut  not  on  the  pedestal  but  on  the  work  of  art  itself  (as  in  this  case)  are  found  to  be 
written  in  a small  space  in  several  lines,  and  are  not  conspicuously  placed.  In  this 
instance  the  inscription  is  under  the  foot,  and  yet  is  easily  read  from  below  if  the 
statue  be  placed  at  the  height  that  was  customary  in  the  third  and  second  centuries  B.C. 
The  Belvedere  torso  is  inscribed  between  the  legs  of  the  figure  on  the  marble  seat. 

How  completely  our  restoration  harmonizes  on  the  one  hand  with  the  existing 
remains,  and  on  the  other  with  Uebay’s  drawing,  can  be  so  easily  ascertained  by  a 
comparison  of  Figs.  158  and  159 — 161  that  it  need  not  be  further  emphasized. 

We  cannot  follow  the  fortunes  of  the  inscribed  block  from  the  time  it  left  Melos 
till  its  arrival  in  the  Louvre,  but  this  is  immaterial.  The  fact  is  enough  that  it  was 
brought  to  the  Louvre  with  the  other  pieces  of  the  statue  ostensibly  from  the  same 
provenance,  and  that  it  was  at  once  adjusted  to  the  plinth.  It  must  not,  however,  be 


Fig.  162. — Side  view  of  the  plinth.  (Restoration  indicated  by  dotted  lines.) 


forgotten  that  the  suggestion  (afterwards  so  often  reiterated  as  a fact)  put  forward  by 
the  Vicomtc  de  Marcellus,  to  the  effect  that  the  inscribed  fragment  was  only  brought 
from  Melos  by  the  Marquis  de  Riviere  in  November  1820,  remains  a pure  conjecture. 
Although  years  later  M.  de  Marcellus  professed  to  have  no  recollection  of  receiving 
the  inscribed  block  in  May  1820,  this  is  no  proof  that  he  did  not  take  it  away. 
Supposing  the  lettering  to  have  been  much  effaced,  the  Vicomte  might  very 
well  mistake  the  block  for  a mere  shapeless  fragment ; and  he  himself  asserts  that 
he  brought  away  everything  that  was  found  with  the  Venus  except  the  large  exedra 
inscription.  The  block  in  question  may  very  well  have  been  among  the  ‘ quelques 
socles  ’ which  he  received.  That  the  Marquis  de  Riviere  brought  it  later  is  a pure 
supposition.  Dumont  d’Urville  immediately  after  the  discovery  stated,  as  is  well 
known,  that  an  illegibly  inscribed  fragment  was  found  with  the  statue,  and  describes  it 
as  the  pedestal  of  one  of  the  terminal  figures  discovered  at  the  same  time.  This 
means  that  it  had  a hollow  as  if  for  the  support  of  a term,  thus  corresponding  to  the 
piece  we  are  now  examining.  YVc  can  hardly  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  fragment 
mentioned  by  Dumont  d’Urville  is  identical  with  ours.  Again,  Vouticr’s  drawing 


PLACE  OF  DISCOVERY 


375 


published  by  Ravaisson,1  and  said  to  have  been  made  in  Melos  before  the  statue  was 
shipped,  i.e.  before  May  24,  1S20,  contains  the  inscribed  piece  under  discussion.  It 
is  drawn  as  ‘ piedestal  d’un  des  henries.’  It  is  evident  that  Vouticr’s  drawing  repre- 
sents the  same  fragment  as  that  described  by  Dumont,  and  that  this  fragment  is  the 
inscribed  block  drawn  by  Dcbay.'2  To  connect  the  inscription  with  a terminal  figure 
is,  of  course,  a purely  arbitrary  hypothesis,  suggested  at  the  time  of  the  discovery,  and 
adopted  by  Dumont  and  Voutier.  We  shall  attach  but  little  value  to  Voutier’s 
evidence  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  he  restored  the  plinth  of  the  Venus  as  a complete 
rectangle.  He  also  drew  an  inscribed  basis3  under  the  second  term,  but  this  basis 
plainly  shows  by  its  section  of  profile  that  it  could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
term.  It  was  simply  a stray  fragment  of  pedestal  with  a hole  for  insertion.  Vouticr’s 
drawing,  then,  is  valuable  only  as  evidence  that  the  inscription  was  found  with  the 
statue,  but  his  combinations  of  inscriptions  and  terminal  figures  are  quite  arbitrary. 

A few  words  must  here  be  added  about  the  character  of  the  spot  where  the 
statue  was  found,  though  this  is  really  a minor  consideration.  According  to  Salomon 
Reinach,4  this  was  a limestone-burner’s  kiln  or  workshop  ( magasin  de  chauxfournier ), 
where  bits  of  refuse  marble  of  all  kinds  were  collected  for  burning.  If  this  statement 
were  correct,  it  would  still  be  no  evidence  against  the  genuineness  of  the  inscribed  block. 
But  I cannot  admit  that  it  is  correct.  Dumont  d’Urville,  an  eyewitness,  speaks  of  ‘ une 
espece  de  niche,’5  and  of  hewn  stones  found  first  by  a peasant.  lie  also  says  that  an 
inscribed  marble  block  was  found  over  the  opening  to  the  niche  ( entree  de  la  niche). 
Clarac  speaks  of  a 1 niche  carree  cl’environ  quatre  pieds  de  large.’  In  Olympia  I have 
often  helped  to  excavate  limestone  kilns  where  had  been  burnt  precious  works  of 
statuary,  which  however  had  always  been  previously  broken  up  into  small  pieces.  But 
not  even  the  most  ignorant  person  could  ever  mistake  such  a limekiln  for  an  archi- 
tectural ‘niche.’  Reinach’s  supposition  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  The  contents  of 
the  ‘ niche’  consisted,  not  of  a mass  of  odd  fragments  of  a number  of  different  statues, 
but  simply  of  the  pieces  of  the  Venus  and  of  the  small  terms  (such  terminal  figures 
being,  as  is  well  known,  a favourite  decoration  of  niches)  and  of  an  odd  hand.  A foot 
‘ chausse  d’un  cothurne  ’ was  found,  according  to  Dumont,  ‘ en  memo  temps,’  but, 
according  to  Marcellus,  not  in  the  same  place,  but  lower  down  near  the  sepulchral 
caves.  This  foot  is  identical  with  the  left  foot  with  a sandal,  of  smaller  proportions 
than  the  Venus  mentioned  by  Clarac  on  p.  24  of  his  work.6  In  November  two 
clumsy  arms  were  brought  to  the  Marquis  de  Riviere,  as  coming  from  the  spot 
where  the  statue  lay — a statement  which  is  naturally  not  very  reliable.  It  is 
evident  that  these  premises  are  insufficient  to  warrant  the  theory  of  ‘ un  magasin  de 
chauxfournier.’ 

My  own  opinion  is  that  the  statue  was  found  in  situ.  I base  it  solely  on 
the  evidence  of  the  earliest  informants  as  given  above,  leaving  entirely  out 
of  the  question  the  statement  made  long  after  the  discovery,  and  already  dis- 
proved by  Ravaisson,  that  the  statue  was  found  intact.7  A square  niche  with  an 
inscribed  block  over  it  was  evidently  what  the  discoverers  saw.  The  niche 

1 V.  de  AI.  1892,  PI.  2;  p.  10,  51.  Cf.  Bert.  Phil.  Wochenschr.  1893,  1108. 

2 Lowy’s  objections  ( loc . cit.  p.  1 12)  are  not  serious.  Debay  may  have  drawn  the  inscription  from  a transcript, 
and  the  original  may  very  well  have  been  illegible  to  the  unpractised. 

3 Mentioned  nowhere  else.  4 Gaz.  d.  Beaux-Arts,  loc.  cit.  p.  3S2. 

5 Brest  (20  Nov.  1820)  also  calls  the  spot  a ‘ niche.’ 

I!  The  foot  must  still  be  in  the  Louvre,  though  Ravaisson  ( V.  de  M.  p.  54)  says  it  cannot  be  found  there. 

7 Cf.  Ravaisson,  V.  d.  M.  1892,  p.  26  sqq.  It  is  needless  to  discus^  the  foolish  nonsense  contribute  d by 
II.  Rochefort  to  the  Art  Francais  of  Jan.  21,  1893,  and  quoted  in  extenso  in  Arch.  Anz.  1893,  p.  27  (cf. 
Sal.  Reinach,  Chronique d' Orient,  1893,  p.  33  ; Bert.  Phil.  IVochenschr .,  loc.  cit.) 


376 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


contained  the  statue  and  two  terminal  figures,1  and,  as  far  as  is  known,  no  other 
fragments  of  sculpture.  Clarac  says  (p.  25)  that  the  block,  from  its  dimensions,  seemed 
to  have  been  placed  above  the  niche.  He  evidently  considered  Dumont’s  statement 
about  the  position  of  the  block  an  inference,  but  a correct  inference,  and  we  have  no 
reason  for  holding  a different  opinion.  Morey’s  assertion  that  the  statue  was  found  in  a 
sepulchral  grotto  partly  hewn  out  of  the  rock  2 found  great  favour,  but  had  no  foundation 
other  than  statements  of  the  Melos  peasants,  who  were  only  too  ready  to  show  the 
English  traveller  (who  visited  the  island  eighteen  years  after  the  discovery)  any 
cave  which  they  thought  would  satisfy  his  curiosity.  The  real  niche  in  question, 
being  in  their  arable  land,  was  probably  destroyed  very  soon  after  its  contents  were 
removed.  It  is  not  the  late  statement  of  Morey,  but  the  first  authentic  records, 
which  can  serve  as  evidence,  for  we  know  how  quickly  ancient  remains  disappear  if 
the  ground  where  they  lie  is  cultivated.  Now  the  place  where  the  statue  was  found 
was  in  cultivated  soil,  above  the  caves.  These  are  hewn  in  the  rocks  of  the  valley 
called  Klima,  which  slopes  down  towards  the  sea.  Ross  has  given  a vivid  description 
of  these  in  his  Inselreisen  (3,  p.  9).  No  trustworthy  record  exists  of  any  remains  of 
sculpture  which  the  caves  may  have  contained.  The  higher  ground,  on  the  other 
hand,  especially  the  site  of  the  ancient  town  of  Melos,  was  peculiarly  rich  in  remains. 
In  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  place  where  the  Venus  was  discovered  there 
were  found  some  years  later  a statue  of  Hermes  bearing  the  artist’s  inscription,  seven 
fragments  of  another  statue,  and  the  inscription  C.  I.  G.  (Bockh)  2431,  to  which  I shall 
have  to  refer  again.3  Recently  the  statue  of  a boxer  has  been  discovered  at  the  same 
spot  as  the  Venus.4  In  a ‘ grotte  ’ within  the  town  ruins,  but  not  localized  more 
accurately,  has  been  found,  along  with  innumerable  votive  gifts  to  Asklepios  and 
Ilygieia,  the  superb  Asklepios  head  now  in  the  British  Museum.5  In  the  lower 
part  of  the  city  near  the  sea,  ‘dans  la  localite  dite  Klima,’6  several  well-preserved 
statues  now  in  the  Central  Museum,  Athens,  recently  came  to  light.7  These  probably 
stood  in  a sanctuary  of  Poseidon,  to  whom  one  of  them  bears  a dedicatory  inscrip- 
tion. Another  is  a colossal  figure  of  the  god  himself,8  of  peculiar  interest  as  affording 
the  closest  analogy  to  the  Venus.  It  is  nude  above  and  draped  below,  and  consists 
of  two  blocks  of  slightly  different  marble  joined  just  within  the  upper  roll  of  drapery, 
exactly  as  in  the  Venus.  The  treatment  of  the  folds,  especially  on  the  right  leg,  which 
supports  the  weight  of  the  body,  is  strikingly  similar.  No  one  has  ever  maintained 
that  the  Poseidon  is  earlier  than  the  Hellenistic  period. 

The  inscription  on  the  block  above  the  niche  reads6: — 

Brt/qyto?  Narfou10  u7roye[^mova/3^)/<7]a?  rdv  t;  it;e&pav  /cal  to  / ...'Ep/xat  TI pa/cXet. 

1 Two  according  to  Dumont,  Brest,  and  Voutier,  yet  three  came  to  the  Louvre,  and  Marcellus  also  speaks  of 
three  ; the  third  was  probably  found  later.  Cf.  infra , p.  377,  and  Ravaisson,  V.  de  M.  p.  38. 

2 The  assumption  so  often  repeated  latterly,  that  the  statue  was  found  in  a hiding-place,  is  purely  arbitrary. 
Even  Ravaisson  ( loc . cit.)  speaks  of  a ‘ cachette.’  It  is  true  that  Le  Blant  (in  Melanges  d’ ArclUologie  et  d'  Hist.  x. 

( 1890)  p.  389  sqq. ) had  shown  from  literary  sources  that  in  the  fifth  century  A.  D.  statues  of  the  gods  were  sometimes 
concealed  from  the  Christians.  That  the  Hercules  Mastai  and  the  Capitoline  Venus  were  found  in  such  hiding- 
places  seems  certainly  correct,  but  it  is  quite  false  to  assert  this  of  the  Venus  of  Milo.  Le  Blant  himself  (p.  394) 
seems  to  doubt  it.  The  original  report  on  the  find  of  the  Melian  statue  makes  it  quite  impossible  ; a niche  with 
a dedicatory  inscription  above  the  entrance,  and  adorned  with  terms,  is  scarcely  a ‘ hiding-place.’ 

3 Brest  in  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1830,  195.  The  Hermes  is  now  in  Berlin.  For  the  inscription  belonging  to  it  see 

Lbwy,  I.  G.  B.  No.  354.  4 Rev.  des  Jstudes  Grecques,  1891,  192. 

5 Annali,  1829,  p.  341.  Cf.  Wolters,  Ath.  Mitth.  xvii.  p.  7.  6 Bull,  de  Con-.  Hell.  1889,  p.  498. 

7 Kabbadias,  yXoirra  r ou  e 8v.  [xovaetov,  Nos.  235 — 238. 

8 Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  1889,  PI.  3 ; Kabbadias,  No.  235. 

n Clarac,  Inscript,  du  Louvre , PI.  54>  441  (No.  802),  p.  853  ; Bockh,  C.  I.  G.  2430. 

10  Clarac's  reading  is  2(e^Tou)  ’A rtov. 


PLACE  OF  DISCOVERY 


377 


The  ‘ cxedra  ’ is  doubtless  the  niche  itself,  dedicated  by  a sub-gymnasiarch  to  the 
special  divinities  of  the  palaestra,  Hermes  and  Herakles.  kcl\  to  / ...  (the  slanting 
stroke  belongs  to  an  A or  A)  is  most  naturally  restored  as  /cal  to  a\^yd\fia  — , 
and  this  can  only  refer  to  the  Venus.  The  name  of  the  goddess  may  have  followed 
the  word  ayaX/xa.  It  would  be  quite  in  accordance  with  usage1  for  a gymnasiarch 
on  leaving  office  to  dedicate  a niche  to  Herakles  and  Hermes,  the  two  patrons 
of  gymnasia,  but  there  was  no  reason  why  he  should  not  include  among  his  votive 
gifts  images  of  other  divinities.  We  have  already  noted  that  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  niche  were  found  the  inscription  ( C . I.  G.  2431) — again  a dedica- 
tion to  Hermes  and  Herakles — a statue  of  Hermes,  and  the  fragments  of  another 
figure  of  which  nothing  is  known  : the  recently  discovered  boxer  also  comes  from 
the  same  spot.  All  this  points  to  the  conclusion  that  we  have  here  remains  of  the 
decorations  of  a gymnasium,  and  not  a chance  heap  of  marble  fragments.2  The  small 
terminal  figures  found  with  the  Venus,  and  which,  according  to  Clarac  ( Venus  Victrix, 
p.  6),  were  leaning  against  the  posterior  wall  of  the  niche,  are  quite  in  place  here. 
At  first  only  two  were  found,  one  bearded  and  one  beardless.  These  were  drawn  by 
Vouticr,  and  described  by  Frohner  {Notice  de  la  Sculpture  Antique , Nos.  194  and  209). 
The  shafts  are  in  good  preservation.  A third  (Frohner,  195)  was  found  later,  and  was 
also  brought  to  the  Louvre.  The  shaft  was  broken  and  is  restored.  All  three  are  of 
somewhat  different  proportions;3  but  in  general  decorative  effect,4  in  marble,  and  in 
style,  they  harmonize  so  closely  that  it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  orna- 
mented one  and  the  same  enclosure.  No.  209  represents  the  old  bearded  type  of 
Hermes,  No.  194  presumably  Hermes  as  a youthful  athlete,  No.  195  the  young 
Herakles.  Probably  there  were  originally  more  of  these  decorative  terms,  but  their 
importance  as  votive  gifts  must  have  been  small  compared  to  that  of  the  large  statue. 
The  workmanship  is  poorer  than  that  of  the  Venus,  but  may  easily  be  of  the  same 
date  : it  is  certainly  pre-imperial.5 

We  are,  however,  justified  in  asking  whether  the  dedicatory  inscription  may 
not  belong  to  a later  date  than  the  artist’s  signature.  The  block  with  the  dedi- 
catory inscription  has  likewise  disappeared  (another  inconvenient  witness  hushed 
up  !),  but  we  fortunately  have  a fairly  exact  copy  by  Clarac.  Both  inscriptions  are 
written  in  the  same  characters,  except  that  the  dedicatory  inscription  has  Pi  with 
the  second  stroke  long,  a form  which  we  know  from  the  Pergamon  inscriptions  to 
have  been  in  use  at  the  end  of  the  third  century  B.C.  along  with  the  older  form  with 
the  shorter  second  stroke.0  We  therefore  have  no  reason  for  dating  the  dedicatory 
inscription  later  than  the  artist’s.  The  character  of  the  epigraphy  allows  us  to  place 
cither  inscription  anywhere  between  200  B.C.  and  the  Christian  era,  but  their  nearest 

1 Cf.  Pergamon , viii.  Inscr.  No.  9,  dedication  to  Hermes  by  a gymnasiarch,  C.  /.  A.  iii.  105.  Do.  123  to 
Hermes  and  Herakles.  Also  Bull.  Corn.  Hell.  1891,  p.  251  sqq.  for  several  similar  inscriptions  from  the 
gymnasium  in  Delos.  The  usual  votive  offering  seems  to  have  been  a terminal  figure. 

2 Cf.  Saloman,  La  Statue  de  Milo,  p.  20  seq. 

:i  The  exact  measurements,  communicated  to  me  by  M.  Michon,  are  as  follows:  No.  194:  whole  height 
(exclusive  of  the  modern  basis)  = 1 • 1 53.  Height  of  bust  = o '30,  of  head=o-i7  ; breadth  of  shaft  = 0'i7,  depth  = 
o'i4. — No.  209  : whole  height  (exclusive  of  the  modern  basis)  =1*26;  height  of  bust  = 0'3i,  of  the  head  down  to 
the  (modern)  point  of  the  beard  = o-24  ; breadth  of  the  shaft  = 0'i95  ; depth  = o-i6. — No.  195  : whole  height  of 
ancient  portion  = o-74S  ; height  of  bust=0‘32  ; of  head  = 0‘iS5  ; breadth  of  shaft  =o-i75,  depth  = 0'i45-  The 
phallos  was  attached  somewhat  differently  in  each. 

4 The  height  of  the  arm-holes  (7  cm.)  and  the  distance  from  the  head  to  the  terminal  shaft  is  the  same  in  all  three. 

5 The  edge  of  the  eyelids  is  smoothed  off,  the  eyeball  is  almost  concave  instead  of  convex— peculiarities  w'hich 
no  longer  occur  in  Imperial  times. 

6 See  Pergamon,  viii.  Inscr.  Nos.  33 — 37  (Attalos  I.),  47,  51,  53  (about  200  lt.c. ),  58,  169,  236,  239,  240-2 
(end  of  empire).  For  the  different  forms  of  pi  in  Attic  records  see  Dittenberger,  Arch.  Ztg.  1876,  p.  139. 

3 c 


378 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


parallels  are  found  from  1 50  to  50  B.C.  For  more  exact  dating  we  must  rely  on  a 
comparison  of  styles. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  quadrangular  niche  in  which  the  Venus  was  dis- 
covered with  the  remains  of  niches  found  ranged  round  a court  which  served  as  the 
place  of  assembly  for  the  Italic  colony  on  the  Island  of  Delos.  These  niches  1 con- 
tained either  benches — -in  which  case  they  were  genuine  it^eSpcu — or  statues  offered 
by  various  persons  at  different  times,  and  the  whole  building  was  dedicated  to  Hermes- 
Mercury,  the  patron  of  the  colony.  The  building  with  its  sculpture  may  be  dated 
about  the  end  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  the  very  period  to  which  we  have  assigned 
the  exedra  of  the  Gymnasium  of  Melos. 

That  court  in  Delos  had  probably  been  copied  from  a gymnasium.  Several 
constructions  of  this  kind  serving  as  gymnasia  or  palaestrae,  and  dating  from 
Hellenistic  or  Roman  times,  have  been  preserved.  The  characteristic  portion  of  the 
design  is  a square,  pillared  courtyard  surrounded  by  a wall  containing  rectangular  or 
rounded  niches  ( exedrai ) once  adorned  by  statues.  Such  are  the  Gymnasium  of 
Hadrian  in  Athens  ( llpa/cri/ca  t!) ? ap~%-  er cupld?,  1885,  iriv.  i.),  the  Gymnasium  in 
Delos  (Bui/.  de  Corr.  Hell.  1891,  p.  238),  and  the  Palaestra  at  Olympia.  For  others 
in  Perge,  Side,  and  elsewhere  see  Petersen  in  Lanckoronski,  Stiidte  in  Pamphylien 
und  Pis  idle  n,  i.  p.  41,  134.  It  is  obvious  how  excellently  the  Melian  finds  fit  into 
this  series  ; the  further  fact  that  the  theatre  is  close  to  the  spot  accords  admirably 
with  our  theory  (cf.  Petersen,  loc.  cit.  p.  134  seq.) 

It  has  been  a somewhat  difficult  task  to  work  our  way  back  to  the  actual  cir- 
cumstances of  the  discovery  of  the  ‘ Venus  of  Milo.’  The  facts  themselves  are  so 
simple  that  it  is  astonishing  they  should  ever  have  been  misunderstood.  It  was  the 
blind  and  prejudiced  notion  of  the  time  that  this  statue  was  a unique  and  unrivalled 
treasure,  the  work  of  Pheidias  or  of  Praxiteles,  something  quite  isolated  from,  and 
independent  of,  historical  limitations.  Ignorance  of  marble  technique  fostered  this 
fancy,  for  the  separate  pieces  which  did  not  tally  with  a preconceived  ideal  were 
ruthlessly  rejected  as  later  additions.  When  an  opinion  has  once  taken  hold  it  is 
extraordinarily  difficult  to  eradicate  it,  however  flatly  an  unprejudiced  examination 
of  fact  may  contradict  it. 


II.  Restoration  of  the  Statue. 

Having  ascertained  what  parts  of  the  statue  are  in  existence,  we  must  now  pro- 
ceed to  restoration  of  the  missing  parts.  The  square  hole  in  the  inscribed  piece  of 
plinth  evidently  held  something  like  a pillar.  This  object  must  have  stood  fairly  high, 
for  the  left  side  of  the  figure  is  less  carefully  worked  than  the  right,  evidently  because 
it  was  to  be  partially  concealed.  Dumont  d’Urville  and  Voutier,  as  we  have  seen, 
supposed  the  inscribed  block  to  be  the  pedestal  of  one  of  the  terms.  Ouatremere  de 
Quincy  says  that  the  hole  in  the  block  corresponded  in  width  to  the  socket  of  one  of 
the  three  terms,  and  Clarac  remarks  (Venus  Victrix,  p.  38)  that  possibly  this  figure 
may  have  been  set  in  the  block  on  the  occasion  of  a restoration.  Nothing  is  said  to 
show  that  it  fitted  exactly,  hence  there  is  no  evidence  for  the  view,  upheld  chiefly 
by  Tarral  and  G.  Saloman,  that  one  of  the  beardless  terms  belonged  to  the  in- 
scribed block.  The  approximate  correspondence  in  size  might  be  purely  accidental, 
and  there  are  various  circumstances  that  tell  directly  against  the  Tarral-Saloman 
theory;  for  instance,  the  workmanship  of  the  terminal  figure  is  much  poorer  than  that 

1 Homolle  in  Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  v.  390  sqq.  viii.  113. 


RESTORATION 


379 


of  the  statue,  and  the  material,  a common  bluish  marble,  is  inferior.  The  artistic 
effect  produced  by  a conjunction  of  statue  and  term  is  distinctly  unpleasing,  as  has 
sufficiently  been  pointed  out  by  others,1  and  as  Tarral’s  restoration  shows  at  a glance. 
It  would  moreover  be  not  only  a hideous  but  an  unparalleled  device  to  place 
a term  as  support  to  a figure  with  which  it  had  no  definite  connexion.2  Overbeck’s 
notion  of  a pillar  on  which  the  shield  stands  must  be  rejected,  because  we  know 
that  the  left  hand  held  an  apple.  The  same  fact  speaks  against  Heydemann’s  hypo- 
thesis,3 that  the  goddess  is  decking  a trophy.  For  such  an  occupation  she  must  have 
both  hands  free,  and  not  be  negligently  holding  the  apple  with  her  left  : besides,  the 
ancient  tropaion  was  always  round,  not  rectangular,  as  must  have  been  the  shaft  inserted 
in  this  hole. 

Let  us  for  once  simply  follow  the  clue  given  by  the  shape  of  the  hole  : we  shall 
immediately  see  that  a pillar  must  be  restored  here.  We  must,  however,  find  a motive 
for  this  pillar.  This  motive  could  only  be  to  serve  as  a support : Aphrodite  was 
resting  the  elbow  of  her  left  arm  on  a pillar.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  solution  of  all  the 
difficulties.  Others4  have  already  observed  that  the  whole  attitude  demands  a 
support  on  the  left  side.  The  biceps  of  the  left  arm  is  not  tense,  as  it  would  be  were 
the  arm  held  freely.  For  the  rest,  it  can  easily  be  gathered  from  the  restorations 
that  show  the  arm  raised  free  into  the  air  how  constrained  and  unnatural,  how  ugly 
and  angular,  this  position  would  be. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  in  both  torso  and  arm  there  are  distinct  traces  of 
the  hole  for  the  large  dowel  which  once  connected  the  two,  the  position  of  the 
upper  arm  can  be  settled  beyond  dispute.5  The  arm  ought  to  be  moderately  raised 
to  the  side  ; this  is  proved  by  the  edge  of  the  fracture  on  the  left  armpit.  The 
convexity  below  prevents  the  arm  being  lifted  higher.  The  direction  of  the  forearm 
is  absolutely  certain  from  the  direction  of  the  dowel-hole  in  the  upper  arm.  Possenti’s 
attempt  at  restoration  proves  that  if  the  dowel-hole  in  the  upper  arm  be  rightly 
connected  with  that  in  the  body,  the  biceps  of  the  upper  arm  would  be  turned  not 
upwards  but  forwards,  and  that  the  forearm,  which,  as  the  muscles  of  the  upper  arm 
show,  was  bent  nearly  at  a right  angle,6  would  also  be  directed  not  upwards  but  for- 
wards. Earlier  attempts  at  restoration  have  all  been  incorrect,  because  they  did  not 
take  into  account  the  direction  of  the  dowel-hole.  Lastly,  the  position  of  the  left  hand 
must  be  fixed.  It  did  not  hang  down,  but  was  turned  upwards,  as  Possenti  rightly 
remarks,  because  the  swelling  on  the  upper  arm  at  the  elbow  points  to  this  position  of 
the  lower  arm.  This  also  explains  the  position  of  the  apple,  which  was  held  by  the 
thumb,  the  third  and  the  fourth  finger,  while  the  first  and  second  fingers  were  gracefully 
extended.7  Now,  if  the  hand  had  hung  down,  the  apple  must  have  been  grasped  more 
firmly.  This  position  of  the  apple  is  natural  only  if  it  rested  on  the  upturned  palm 
of  the  hand.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  back  of  the  hand  is  so  roughly  worked.  It 

1 Cf.  Heydemann,  Pariser  Antiken,  p.  7. 

2 Certain  terra-cottas  derived  from  pictures  (e.g.  Samm.  Sabouroff,  Taf.  84)  fail  under  a different  heading  from 
large  statuary  compositions. 

3 Other  archaeologists  take  no  account  of  the  hole  in  the  basis,  though  Fried.  Kiel,  to  be  sure  {Die  Venus  von 
Milo,  Hanover  1882,  p.  32)  imagines  a lance  fixed  in  the  hole  and  held  by  the  goddess  with  both  hands — i.e. 
Venus  as  giantess  with  a spear  as  thick  as  a tree  ! 

4 Cf.  Ravaisson,  Rev.  Arch.  1890,  xv.  148  ; Vhius  de  Milo,  p.  56. 

5 A portion  of  the  smooth  surface  of  junction  may  still  be  seen  on  the  fragment  of  arm.  On  the  torso  the 

corresponding  surface  has  been  broken  away,  but  the  piece  may  be  restored  with  absolute  certainty  by  aid  of  the 
dowel-holes.  6 Cf.  Henke  in  Liitzow  s Zeitschr.  f.  Bi/d.  Kunst,  1886,  p.  198. 

7 Cf.  Kroker,  loc.  cit.  Kroker’s  notion  that  the  first  and  second  finger  must  have  held  something — and  that 
this  was  the  edge  of  the  shield — is  in  itself  sufficiently  unsatisfactory.  It  will  be  seen  to  be  quite  impossible,  from 
the  proofs  adduced  above  as  to  the  real  position  of  the  arm. 


38o 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


was  turned  downwards,  and  was  therefore  not  much  seen.  Fig.  163  gives  a sketch 

of  a restoration  proposed  by  Possenti,  which  is  carried  out 
in  plaster,  and  illustrates  what  I have  just  said. 

The  arm  thus  raised  and  supported  under  the  elbow 
forms  a not  ungraceful  motive — at  any  rate,  it  has  many 
analogies.  A figure  of  Hermes  on  a vase  (Millin,  Vases 
Feints,  ii.  20)  may  first  be  mentioned  ; it  is  evidently 
influenced  by  sculpture,  and  the  arm  is  supported  on  a 
tall  slender  pillar  in  the  way  supposed  for  the  Venus.1 
The  vase  appears  to  be  of  fourth-century  Attic  manufac- 
ture. Still  more  instructive  is  a series  of  terra-cotta  statuettes 
of  the  fourth  century  B.C.  representing  Aphrodite  half- 
draped  like  the  Melian  statue,  the  elbow  supported  on 
a pillar  and  the  left  arm  raised.  Further,  Aphrodite  in 
a similar  attitude  often  occurs  on  gems  of  the  Hellenistic 
period  (Fig.  164).'2  A beautiful  bronze  statuette  of  the 
nude  Aphrodite  (Dresden,  Fig.  165) 3 reproduces  a motive 
which  is  still  commoner  in  terra-cottas.  The  forearm  is 
not  raised,4  but  bent  forward  in  the  position  proved  for 
the  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  The  left  hand — and  this  is 
specially  interesting  in  the  present  connexion — hangs  loosely 
from  the  wrist  holding  an  apple.  The  support  was  in 
a separate  piece  and  has  disappeared,  but  the  whole  atti- 
tude makes  it  quite  certain  that  it  was  originally  there.5  Pillar  supports  arc 
of  very  common  occurrence  in  ancient  statuary.  Pheidias  himself  had  given 
one  to  the  Parthenos,  though  it  was  purely  technical,  and  not,  as  here,  part  of  the 
composition. 

In  further  confirmation  of  our  restoration  we  may  note  two  late 
Roman  marble  variants  of  the  motive  of  the  Melian  statue,  in  both  of 
which  are  to  be  seen  traces  of  a support  under  the  left  arm.  These  are 
a statuette  in  Treves,  and  another  in  Dresden.  The  traces  are  less 
distinct  in  the  Treves  statuette,0  but  in  the  Dresden  example  7 (Fig. 

166)  is  still  to  be  seen  the  end  of  a rectangular  pillar  on  a low  base. 

This  statuette  is,  however,  in  no  sense  a replica  of  the  Venus  of  Milo. 

Probably  the  pillar  supported  an  attribute — possibly  a lyre s — with 
which  the  left  hand  was  occupied,  and  towards  which  the  right  hand 
also  was  directed. 


Fig.  164. — Aphrodite 
on  a gem  (Berlin). 


1 Published  examples  : Dumont-Chaplain,  Ceramique  Gr.  ii.  28,  2,  apparently  identical  with  Arch.  Anz.  1891, 
p.  121,  10.  See  also  Arch.  Anz.,  loc.  cit.  p.  22,  6,  and  Samm.  Sabonroff,  Taf.  132  below,  to  the  left. 

2 Brown  convex  paste  (Berlin,  Inv.  p.  581).  The  gem  belongs  to  a distinct  class,  which  is  most  certainly 
Hellenistic.  In  the  right  hand  is  a leaf-fan,  the  left  hand  seems  to  have  held  the  end  of  the  cloak  (Fig.  164). 
For  an  analogous  Hellenistic  gem  cf.  King,  Ancient  Gems  and  Rings,  ii.  PI.  23,  B.  5. 

3 Basis  and  pillar  modern.  Pre-Roman. 

4 Berlin  Antiq.  TC.  7794-  Half-nude  Aphrodite  ; left  upper  arm  raised  and  supported  on  pillar,  forearm 
hanging  down. 

5 Cf.  the  Apollo  bronze,  Arch.  Anz.  1889,  p.  105,  where  the  left  arm  is  held  as  in  the  Melian  statue,  and 
presupposes  a similar  support. 

6 Flasch,  Jahrb.  d.  Ver.  v.  Alterthumsfr . im  Rhein/.  Heft  62,  Taf.  2,  p..  74  sqq.\  Hettner,  Die  Rom.  Stein- 
denkmdler  in  Trier,  No.  684.  Flasch ’s  interpretation  of  the  figure  as  a Hygieia  seems  very  uncertain  to  Hettner, 
who  inclines  to  think  it  represents  a Victory  setting  up  a trophy. 

7 Half  life-size  figure,  Hettner,  No.  174  ; published  with  the  old  restorations  (now  removed),  Le  Plat,  124, 
and  Clarac,  595,  1301.  Poor,  late  workmanship. 

8 Hettner  suggests  Terpsichore.  Cf.  Clarac,  481,  959  B. 


TYCHE  OF  MELOS 


381 

1 had  carried  my  inquiry  to  this  point,  when  I first  noticed  what  is  the  strongest 
proof  of  my  restoration,  and  what  at  the  same  time  seems  to  place  it  beyond  all 
uncertainty— namely,  that  the  highly  revered  cultus-statue  of  Melos,  the  Tyche  of  the 
island,  was  represented  in  the  same  attitude  as  the  one  which  we  are  compelled  to 
suppose  was  that  of  the  Melian  statue.  This  type  is  known  to  us  from  Imperial 
bronze  coins  of  the  island,  of  which  there  are  three  examples  in  Berlin  (see  Fig.  167, 
with  the  legend  TTXH),1  and  from  a relief  on  the  drum  of  a column  found,  along 
with  its  counterpart  which  reproduces  an  archaic  cultus-image  of  Athena,  in  Melos, 


Fig.  165.— Bronze  Aphrodite  (Dresden). 


near  the  theatre  (Fig.  168).'2  The  goddess  supports  her  right  arm  on  a simple  pillar 
or  column  in  the  position  ascertained  for  the  left  arm  of  the  Aphrodite,  except  that 
in  the  Tyche  the  forearm  too  is  raised,  in  keeping  with  the  solemn  attitude  of  the 
goddess.  It  is  not  impossible  that,  like  our  Venus,  the  original  statue  held  the  apple, 
which  as  the  symbol  of  the  island  would  be  a singularly  appropriate  attribute. 

It  is  at  once  obvious  that  the  motive  of  the  supported  arm  must  have  been 
transferred  from  the  Tyche  to  the  Venus,  and  that  the  reverse  was  not  the  case, 

1 The  three  examples  in  Berlin  all  have  the  pillar  as  support  and  the  child  raising  its  arms  to  the  right.  The 

description  in  Imhoof-Blumer,  Griech.  Miinzen  (AM.  Bayr.  Akati.  i.  Cl.  xviii.  3),  p.  547,  should  he  rectified 
accordingly.  2 Cf.  Wolters  in  Ath.  Mitth.  xv.  248. 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


3'S2 

for  the  position  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  calm  dignity  of  Tvche;  she  holds 
the  infant  Ploutos  on  her  left  arm,  and  with  a festal,  solemn  air  rests  her  left  elbow 

upon  the  pillar.  On  the  other  hand,  the  motive  is  so 
little  suited  to  the  animated  pose  of  the  Aphrodite  that 
it  must  have  been  borrowed.  The  statue  of  Tyche, 
although,  to  judge  by  the  drapery,  not  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  is  most  pro- 
bably older  than  the  Aphrodite.  Hence  we  may  con- 

clude that  the  motive  belonged  originally  to  Tyche, 
and  was  transferred  to  Aphrodite,  although  the  artist 
altered  the  forearm  and  did  not  represent  it  raised. 
This  transference  seems  only  natural  when  we  remember 
the  close  connexion  of  the  two  divinities  in  Hellenistic 
times,  especially  among  the  Asiatic  Greeks.1  In  my 
view,  the  artist  wished  to  characterize  the  Aphrodite 
of  the  Gymnasium  as  goddess  of  Good  Luck,  and 
therefore  gave  her  the  pose  of  the  Tyche  of  the 
city.  If,  as  I suppose,  Tyche  held  the  apple,  the  trans- 
ference was  still  more  fitting,  for  the  apple  was  the 
peculiar  attribute  of  Aphrodite.2  A remarkable  coin 
of  Melos  of  Imperial  date  proves  that  the  Tyche  type 
was  used  even  for  a male  figure  personifying  the  Good 
Luck  of  the  city.3 

The  preceding  considerations  not  only  justify  our  restoration  of  the  left  arm 

with  the  support,  but  have  given  us  fresh  material  for  deciding  the  question  of 

‘originality.’  Our  statue  cannot  be  an  ‘original’  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  since 
the  artist  who  designed  it  borrowed,  for  purely  external  and 
not  artistic  reasons,  a motive  foreign  to  the  central  conception. 

It  is  necessary  to  bear  this  in  mind  in  our  attempts  to  restore 
the  right  arm.  We  shall  no  longer  demand  (as  those  critics 
have  done  who  took  it  for  granted  that  they  were  dealing  with 
an  absolutely  original  work)  a perfect  correspondence  between 
the  motive  of  right  and  left  hand.  The  discovery  of  the  left 
hand  holding  the  apple  was  in  itself  enough  to  exclude  the 
idea  of  such  correspondence. 

The  strong  tension  of  the  upper  part  of  the  right  arm 
can  be  explained  only  by  supposing  that  the  hand  was  extended 
downwards  across  the  body  towards  some  point  a little  distance  from  it.  1 his  point 
can  only  be  the  drapery  on  the  left  thigh.  Most  restorations  make  the  arm  too 
short.4  The  hand  could  easily  reach  the  lower  edge  of  the  mantle  falling  about 

1 Cf.  Samm.  Sabonroff,  Text  to  Taf.  25,  p.  3 set/. 

2 In  Magnesia  accordingly  she  was  called  ’ A<f>p.  MrjAe/a,  as  we  know  from  a coin  (Imhoof-Blumer,  Monnatcs 
Grecqucs,  p.  292  ; cf.  Herakles  M^Aeios).  This  Aphrodite  has  naturally  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Melos  (in 
which  case  the  adjective  would  be  MrjAfa).  Ravaisson,  however  ( Vaults  de  Milo , p.  109),  quoted  this  coin 
(without  giving  the  reference),  and  translates  ‘ Venus  des  Meliens  ! ’ 

3 The  coin  is  published  by  Imhoof-Blumer,  Griech.  Miinz.  Taf.  2,  9.  The  figure,  which  is  bearded,  is, 
regardless  of  sex,  designated  as  Tux1?-  I cannot  agree  with  Imhoof ’s  view  that  this  is  due  to  mere  carelessness  ; 
it  seems  to  me  more  likely  that  the  image  refers  to  a benefactor  of  the  island  who  was  represented  as  her  Tyche, 
holding  the  infant  Ploutos. 

4 So  in  Tarral  and  Hasse.  The  correct  length  is  given  in  Valentin’s  restoration  {Kit  11st  mid  Kiinstler,  plate 
to  p.  240). 


Fig.  167. — Bronze  coin  of  the 
island  of  Melos  (Berlin). 


TYCHE  OF  MELOS 


383 


the  thigh.  All  this  portion  is  unfortunately  much 
worn  away,  yet  the  lie  of  the  folds  is  still  sufficiently 
clear  to  show  that  the  hand  was  busied  here. 

Possenti,  who  is  of  the  same  opinion,  has  also 
pointed  out  to  me  that  the  right  arm,  like  the 
left,  must  have  been  joined  on,  because  the  block  of 
marble  of  which  the  upper  torso  was  made  was  not 
large  enough  to  include  the  whole  of  the  arm.  The 
existing  arm-stump  shows  evident  marks  of  break- 
age, hence  the  contact-surface  was  probably  lower 
down,  as  indeed  we  should  expect  from  the  size  of 
the  block,  which  is  large  enough  to  have  included 
the  upper  arm. 

The  right  arm  was  not  fastened  on  in  the  same 
way  as  the  left  arm.  It  was  not  supported,  but  hung 
down,  therefore  it  needed  a more  solid  attachment. 

It  was  connected  with  the  body  of  the  statue  by  a 
strong  side  dowel.  Under  the  right  breast  is  a large 

square  hole  two  inches  deep,  for 
the  dowel  which  supported  the  arm.1 
In  the  front  view,  this  dowel  was,  as 
Possenti’s  restoration  shows,  not  visible, 
and  in  the  side  view  which  our  figure 
gives  it  is  covered  by  the  arm.  The 
explanation  of  the  right  arm  already 
given  by  Dumont  d’Urville — namely, 
that  it  was  feeling  for  the  drapery — 
turns  out,  therefore,  to  be  correct,  as 
must  strike  any  careful  observer  un- 
prejudiced by  aesthetic  theories.  The 
mantle  is  but  loosely  thrown  round  the 
body,  and  the  action  of  pulling  it  closer 
by  the  end  which  falls  over  the  left 
thigh  is  a very  natural  one,  requiring 
no  special  intention  to  account  for  it. 
The  folds  over  the  left  thigh  are  some- 
what displaced  and  drawn  up,  and  this 
can  only  be  due  to  the  action  of  the 
right  hand.  We  should  note,  however, 
that  the  motive  of  the  left  hand,  which 
was  supported  and  held  an  apple,  is 
comparatively  independent. 

It  is  clear  that  the  two  arms  thus 
restored  lend  neither  unity  nor  harmony 
to  the  composition  ; in  short,  their  loss 
is  one  less  to  be  deplored  than  might 
at  first  appear.  But  since  we  are  now 

1 I am  now  Convinced  by  Signor  Possenti’s  arguments  that  the  hole  belongs  not  to  a later  restoration  (as  I 
formerly  believed),  but  to  the  original  fastening  of  the  arm,  which  was  very  firm  and  solid. 


384 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


trying  to  find  out,  not  what  the  statue  ought  to  have  been  or  how  it  would  answer 
best  to  our  preconceived  notions,  but  what  it  actually  was,  we  shall  not  allow  this 
discovery  to  affect  our  results. 

We  may  reasonably  ask  at  this  point  : If  the  goddess  is  leaning  on  her  left  arm 
and  calmly  holding  her  attribute,  whence  comes  the  agitated  position  of  the  upper 
part  of  the  torso,  and  why  is  the  left  foot  raised  ? Why  has  she  put  on  the  mantle 
in  such  a way  that  she  must  grasp  it  with  the  right  hand  ? What  is  the  meaning 
of  the  motive  ? 

An  exquisite  terra-cotta  statuette  from  Myrina,  of  Hellenistic  date  (Berlin, 
Fig.  169), 1 gives  a variant  showing  the  harmonious  grace  of  which  the  subject  was 
capable.  In  this  figure  we  have  again  an  Aphrodite  with  the  upper  part  of  the  body 
undraped,  the  left  arm  leaning  on  a pillar,  the  right  leg  supporting  the  weight  of  the 
body,  and  the  head  turned  to  the  left.  But  the  motive  is  vigorous  and  concentrated. 
The  figure  seems  to  be  one  of  the  few  terra-cottas  which  really  reflect  the  spirit  of 
statuary.  It  is  an  old  type  effectually  made  new  by  the  upward  turn  of  the  head 
and  the  spread  of  drapery  arranged  to  form  a background  to  the  nude  torso.  A 
specially  interesting  feature  of  the  conception  is  the  animated  manner  in  which  the 
right  hand  holds  up  the  attributive  apple.2 

How  was  it  that  the  artist  of  the  Mclian  statue  failed  to  round  off  and  harmonize 
his  work  in  some  such  way  ? The  answer  to  this  question  demands  a separate 
chapter. 

III.  Influences  that  affected  the  Artist  of  the  ‘ Venus.' — Skofas. — Historical 

Position  of  the  Venus. 

The  artist  of  the  Venus  of  Milo  took  two  entirely  independent  traditional  types, 
and  tried  to  combine  them  by  means  of  partial  modification.  The  result,  as  might 
have  been  imagined,  was  not  altogether  happy.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
motive  of  the  left  arm  was  taken  over  from  the  Tyche  of  Melos.  But  it  can  also 
be  ascertained  whence  the  artist  borrowed  the  main  design  : it  can  be  traced  back 
to  an  original,  the  best-known  copy  of  which  is  the  well-known  Venus  of  Capua 
(Fig.  170).3 

The  usual  theory,  that  this  figure  is  a weak  Roman  variant  of  the  Venus  of  Milo, 
is  singularly  perverse,  and  can  be  easily  disproved  by  external  evidence  alone.  The 
Venus  of  Milo  is  unique,  and  no  replicas  of  it  exist.4  Of  the  Capua  Venus  there  are 
not  only  several  exact  replicas6  but  sundry  Roman  variants,  showing  that  this  statue, 
and  not  the  Venus  of  Milo,  was  the  one  renowned  in  antiquity. 

The  Capuan  type  several  times  appears  grouped  with  Ares,0  but  that  this  was 

1 In  the  Berlin  Antiquarium,  TC.  Inv.  No.  8151.  Height  o-29. 

2 Cf.  another  statuette  from  Myrina  in  Karlsruhe.  (Sal.  Reinach,  Chroniqite  d’ Orient,  p.  325-)  The  right 
hand  holds  the  apple,  while  the  left  draws  up  the  cloak. 

' For  literature  see  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsab.  1452.  Both  arms  are  restored  from  just  below  the  shoulder. 
The  basis  in  the  original  is  about  35  cm.  broader  to  the  right  of  the  helmet.  This  surface  (left  out  in  the  cast, 
cf.  Fig.  170)  would  not  be  large  enough  for  an  Ares,  and  probably  supported  an  Eros,  a favourite  addition  of  the 
copyists.  Good  illustration  in  Brunn-Bruckmann,  Denkmaler,  No.  297. 

4 The  supposed  replicas  are  really  copies  of  the  Venus  of  Capua. 

5 e.g.  (a)  ‘ Venus  Torlonia’  in  Villa  Albani,  No.  7 33  (Valentin,  Holie  Frau  von  Milo , Taf.  4,  10  ; cf.  Helbig, 
Museums,  838).  The  head  does  not  belong  to  the  statue.  (b)  Torso  from  Smyrna  in  Vienna  (Goler  von  Ravens- 
burg,  Venus  v.  Milo,  p.  173  ; Benndorf,  in  Arch.  Epigr.  Mitth.  aus  Oesterr.  1880,  p.  72>  note). 

c In  the  Florentine  group  (Clarac,  634,  1430,  phot.  Alinari)  the  Venus,  both  in  body  and  drapery,  is  an 
exact  copy  of  the  Capuan  statue.  The  small  poor  group  in  the  Villa  Borghese  agrees  in  this  respect  with  the 
Florentine  ; the  goddess  sets  her  foot  on  a pair  of  greaves  (group  given  by  Nibby  in  Mon.  Scelti  d.  J il/a 


385 


VENUS  OF  CAPUA 

not  the  original  intention  is  plain  from  the  circumstance  that  the  figure  of  Ares 
is  now  of  one  type  now  of  another.  If  these  groups  could  all  be  referred  to  one 
original,  the  type  of  Ares  would  always  be  the  same.  The  composition  of  the  groups 
is  so  poor  and  clumsy  that  it  is  impossible  to  refer  it  to  an  earlier  period  than  that  in 
which  the  extant  monuments  were  actually  executed. 

The  Capuan  type  occurs  with  the  addition  of  an  under-garment,  not  only  as  a 
single  figure,1  but  also  grouped  with  Ares2  or  Asklepios.3  The  chiton  differs  so  much 


Fig.  170. — Venus  of  Capua  (Naples). 


in  the  various  examples  that  it  cannot  have  formed  part  of  the  original  design.  It 
seems  clear  that  it  was  added  because  the  type  had  to  be  used  for  portraits  of 

Borghese,  Tav.  44  ; more  lately  by  Ravaisson,  loc.  cit . PL  7,  1.  Ravaisson  is  unaware  of  the  former  publication,  and 
has  left  out  the  head  of  Ares,  which  although  broken  and  wrongly  set  is  yet  genuine).  In  the  Capitolme  group 
(Clarac,  634,  1428  ; Helbig,  Museums,  502),  the  Venus,  being  turned  into  a portrait-statue,  has  been  given  a chiton. 
The  same  is  the  case  in  the  Paris  group  (Clarac,  326,  1431),  where  the  arrangement  of  the  mantle  is  likewise 
altered.  Cf.  the  sarcophagi,  and  the  relief  from  Side  in  Lanckoronski,  Pamphyl.  u.  Pisid.  i.  p.  147  ; Reinach, 
Chron.  d’ Or.  p.  701  : Ravaisson,  loc.  cit.  PI.  7,  3 5 the  fragment  of  a terra-cotta  relief  from  Locri  published  by 
R.  ibid.  PI.  7,  4,  and  on  which  he  lays  great  stress,  has  absolutely  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  group.  It  is 
the  remains  of  a fifth-century  group,  similar  to  the  one  which  I described  in  the  50th  Berl.  Wmckelmannsprogr. 
(see  also  Herzog,  Stud.  z.  Gesch.  d.  Gr.  Kunst,  p.  12).  ^ 

1 (a)  ‘ Venus  Falerone  ’ in  the  Louvre  (No.  1737),  Mon.  d.  Inst.  iii.  2,  1 ; Goler  v.  Ravensburg,  I . v.  M.  17b. 
Left  foot  on  helmet.  ( b ) Statue  in  Madrid,  cast  in  Paris  (Goler,  p.  179  ; Ravaisson,  V de  M.  PI.  6,  3,  4)-  Chiton 
added  after  the  model  of  the  Venus  of  Kos  of  Praxiteles.  Replica  in  the  Vatican,  Giardmo  della  Ihgna. 
(Ravaisson,  loc.  cit.  PI.  6,  1,  2.)  ( c ) Statue  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1733)  restored  as  a Muse,  (d)  Cast  of  a torso 
said  to  have  been  found  in  the  Giardino  Boboli,  Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts,  Paris,  (e)  Coll.  Jacobsen,  Copenhagen. 
A good  copy  without  head  or  arms.  (/)  Statuettes  in  Treves  and  Dresden  (see  supra,  p.  380). 

2 Cf.  p.  384,  note  6. 

3 Group  in  Turin,  Dutschke,  iv.  312  ; pub.  by  Ravaisson  ( V.  de  M.  PI.  7,  2)- 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


386 

distinguished  Roman  ladies,1  represented  as  Venus  Victory,2  Hygieia,  or  a Muse,  and 
in  all  such  cases  a fuller  costume  was  naturally  indispensable. 

In  Imperial  times,  as  I have  already  said,  the  type  is  adopted  for  a figure  of 
Victory  writing  a list  of  victories  on  a shield.  This  idea  seems  to  have  been  first 
conceived  by  some  artist  of  Vespasian’s  reign,  for  the  type — in  various  trifling  variants 
— suddenly  appears  on  the  bronze  coins  of  Vespasian  ;3  we  next  find  it  on  the  silver 
money  of  Trajan,4  on  his  triumphal  column,5  and  on  later  coins,6  but  there  is  no 
instance  earlier  than  Vespasian.7  The  famous  statue  of  Brescia8  is  known  from  its 
provenance  to  have  belonged  to  the  same  reign.  Its  artist  did  not  care  to  make  an 
exact  copy  of  the  Aphrodite.  Not  only  did  he  add  the  chiton,  but  he  altered  the 
folds  of  the  upper  garment  to  suit  the  petty  taste  of  his  day.  The  nature  of  the 
alterations,  however,  plainly  shows  that  the  original  on  which  he  founded  his  work 
was — not  the  Venus  of  Milo,  but — the  Venus  of  Capua.  The  hypothesis  that  the 
Brescia  statue  is  the  original  type  is  completely  excluded  not  only  by  the  presence  of 
the  chiton  but  by  the  fact  that  it  stands  alone,  while  the  Capua  type  is  represented  by 
numerous  replicas.  A very  small  alteration  was  enough  to  transform  the  Capuan 
Venus  into  a Victory,  for  the  Venus,  as  we  shall  learn  presently  from  Corinthian  coins, 
was  herself  originally  represented  with  a shield. 

By  the  restitution  of  the  shield  in  the  Capuan  type,  the  unusual  motive,  which  in 
the  Melian  statue  remained  obscure,  becomes  clear  and  intelligible  throughout.  The 
goddess  has  placed  her  left  foot  on  a support  9 in  order  to  rest  the  shield  on  her  sloping 
left  thigh.10  The  shield  was  placed  sideways  so  as  not  to  cover  the  front  of  the  statue, 
consequently  the  body  is  turned  towards  the  left.  The  right  shoulder  is  lowered  and 
the  right  arm  pressed  close  to  the  breast,  because  the  right  hand  held  the  lower  edge 
of  the  shield.  The  left  arm  is  raised  horizontally,  because  the  left  hand  held  the  upper 
edge  of  the  shield.  The  head  is  bent  to  look  into  the  reflecting  surface,  and  the  upper 
torso  is  nude,  because  it  is  just  this  part  of  the  body  that  the  goddess  wishes  to  see 
reflected.  The  mantle  is  high  on  the  left  hip,  because  the  weight  of  the  shield  held  it 
firm  on  that  side.  On  the  right  side  it  slips  lower  down. 

A comparison  with  the  Melian  statue  shows  at  once  that  its  motive  is  derived 
from  the  Capuan  type.  The  main  lines  of  the  composition — the  raised  foot,  the  turn 
of  the  nude  torso  to  the  left,  the  gesture  of  the  arms — are  all  meaningless  when  the 
shield  is  removed,  and  are  adopted  here  only  because  they  form  a graceful  pose. 
Yet  the  artist  was  no  slavish  imitator,  like  those  Roman  copyists  who  grouped  together 
at  random  and  without  alteration  traditional  types  of  Ares  and  Aphrodite.  He 
was  one  who  knew  how  to  subject  the  composition  to  a thorough  remodelling  for  a 
definite  purpose.  All  the  movements  which  had  the  shield  for  centre  might  be  made 
less  pronounced  now  that  the  shield  was  removed.  Thus  the  inclination  of  the  body 


1 All  copies  with  chiton  where  the  heads  are  preserved  are  Roman  portraits.  To  the  same  series  belong 
also  the  sarcophagi  where  the  dead  woman  appears  as  Venus. 

2 The  late  Roman  figure  on  a cinerary  urn  from  Lykia  is  half  Venus  half  Victory  (Ath.  Mitth.  ii. 
Taf.  10). 

3 Shield  supported  on  the  thigh  or  hanging  on  a palm.  Upper  part  of  the  body  nude. 

4 Shield  on  a pedestal.  Upper  part  of  the  body  nude. 

0 Shield  on  a pedestal.  Upper  part  of  the  body  draped. 

6 Cf.  Frohner,  Mtd.  de  V Empire  Romain,  p.  163  (Caracalla). 

7 The  Nike  writing  on  a shield  on  coins  of  the  gens  Egnatuleia  and  on  some  pre-imperial  gems  is  a different 
type  altogether. 

8 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1453. 

9 The  helmet  under  the  left  foot,  which  appears  in  several  replicas,  was  most  likely  a-feature  of  the  original. 

10  The  shield,  which  was  most  certainly  made  of  metal,  has  naturally  left  no  traces  on  the  drapery. 


APHRODITE  WITH  THE  SHIELD 


387 


and  head  to  the  left  and  forward  being  lessened,  the  whole  figure  becomes  more  erect, 
and  the  eyes  look  straight  into  space.  The  right  shoulder  droops  less  and  the  right 
arm  falls  more  perpendicularly — all  this  evidently  because  the  goddess  is  no  longer 
looking  at  her  image  in  the  bright  surface.  These  variations  alone  should  have 
sufficed  to  warn  those  who  wished  to  restore  the  Venus  of  Milo  with  a shield.  But 
the  drapery  too  has  been  altered.  As  the  shield  is  not  there  to  keep  up  the  left  side 
of  the  cloak,  and  there  is  accordingly  no  reason  why  one  side  should  be  higher  than 
the  other,  both  sides  have  been  allowed  to  slip  down  as  far  as  they  can  without  falling 
off.  The  torso,  especially  from  a back  view,  gains  in  sensuous  charm  by  the  change, 
but  the  drapery  would  always  produce  an  impression  of  insecurity  even  were  the  right 
hand  still  intact  to  keep  it  in  place. 

With  the  rejection  of  the  shield  as  mirror  the  meaning  of  the  drapery  and 
the  naturalness  of  the  pose  are  lost.  In  the  original  type  the  goddess,  who  is 
wont  to  be  draped,  has  partly  disrobed  for  a definite  reason,  in  order  to  contem- 
plate her  own  beauty  undisturbed.  In  the  Meliati  type  she  displays  her  charms 
apparently  with  no  object  at  all,  and  one  does  not  see  why  she  does  not  disrobe 
altogether.  When  we  remember  that  our  modern  notions  of  the  ‘ideal  nudity’ 
appropriate  to  Aphrodite  were  quite  foreign  to  Greek  artists  of  the  best  period,1  and 
that  in  the  fourth  century,  when  Aphrodite  began  to  appear  undraped,  there  was  at 
first  always  some  definite  motive  to  account  for  her  doing  so,  it  must  be  still  more 
plain  to  us  that  the  Capuan  is  the  older  motive,  the  Melian  the  later  variant.  Not 
till  after  the  period  of  Alexander  did  it  become  customary  to  represent  Aphrodite 
nude  without  any  special  reason,  as  in  the  well-known  Medici  and  Capitoline  types. 
Praxiteles  made  his  Venus  of  Knidos  nude  because  she  was  just  stepping  into  the 
bath,  and  the  Venus  of  Arles,  which  we  have  traced  to  Praxiteles,  is  partly  undraped 
because  she  is  at  her  toilet  and  holds  a mirror.  The  Aphrodite  looking  at  herself  in 
a shield  is  analogous  to  these,  and  would  admirably  suit  the  period  in  which  Praxiteles 
created  a pseliumene.  A well-known  passage  in  the  Argonautica  of  Apollonios  (i.742) 
proves  that  the  motive  was  invented  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.  The 
poet  is  describing  a piece  of  embroidery,  part  of  which  represents  the  goddess  looking 
at  her  own  reflection  in  the  shield  of  Ares  : — 

e£e/?79  S’ijcnaiTO  fladvTrXo/cap.o'i  K vOepeta 
’’Apeo?  o'g/jiu^ovaa  8oov  cra/co?.  etc  he  oi  cl) fiov 
irrigyv  eivi  ctkcuov  £vvo%rj  Ke^aXaaro  % itwvo 9 
vepOev  inre/c  pca^olo’  to  h’avTiov  arpeice 9 avrun; 

%a\/c€iy  hel/ajXov  ev  aenreho  0atWr’  ihecrdai. 

The  poet  seems  to  have  the  Capuan  type  before  his  mind’s  eye.  He  too  thinks 
of  the  goddess  as  fully  draped  and  loosening  her  chiton  on  one  side  in  order  to  see 
herself  in  the  mirror.  We  have  here  literary  evidence  for  our  view  that  the  disrobing 
required  a motive  to  account  for  it.  The  chiton,  which  takes  the  place  of  the  mantle 
of  the  statuary  composition,  is  clearly  only  an  effective  poetic  invention,  and  must 
not  be  referred  to  another  definite  artistic  prototype. 

1 The  few  examples  of  the  nude  Aphrodite  in  archaic  art  (cf.  Korte  in  Arch.  Studien  H.  Brunn  dargebr.  1893, 

р.  24)  are  influenced  by  foreign  types  ; the  nude  figures  supporting  mirrors  seem  to  have  been  borrowed  direct 
from  Egypt.  Other  nude  female  figures  (not  to  be  confused  with  Aphrodite)  represent  attendants  or  priestesses  : 

с. g.  archaic  bronzes  with  cymbals  (Korte,  p.  28),  flute-player  (Rom.  Mitth.  1892,  p.  54),  and  probably  also  the 
original  of  the  Esquiline  Venus  (Helbig,  Museums,  566).  The  latter  statue  has  been  most  improbably  interpreted  as 
Atalanta,  for  the  resemblance  of  the  motive  naturally  proves  nothing. 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


388 


It  would  only  be  natural  to  suppose  that  it  was  the  shield  of  Ares  which 
Aphrodite  was  choosing  as  her  mirror,  seeing  that  the  two  divinities  are  often  closely 
united  in  one  cultus,1  were  it  not  that  the  evidence  of  Corinthian  Imperial  coins  seems 
to  point  another  way.  The  cultus-image  reproduced  by  these  coins  stood  in  a small 
temple  2 on  the  Akrokorinthos,  and  corresponded  in  attitude  to  the  Capuan  type,  except 
that  the  sides  were  reversed  {supra,  Plate  VI.  38).3  Now  in  Corinth  Aphrodite  was  wor- 
shipped with  Helios,  not  with  Ares.  Pausanias  calls  the  image  of  Aphrodite  on  the 
Akrokorinthos  ‘armed  ’ (a>Tr\icr/J.ev'>i).  Of  late  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  goddess 
on  the  coins  is  the  armed  Aphrodite  of  Pausanias.4  But  the  goddess  on  the  coins 
holds  the  shield  alone,  which  she  is  using  as  a mirror,  and  no  other  weapons  of  any 
kind.  To  call  such  a figure  ‘armed’  would  surely  be  far-fetched.  It  is  much  more 
likely  that  the  image  seen  by  Pausanias  was  an  ancient  idol.  If  this  be  so,  there 
must  have  been  two  images  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  Akrokorinthos — one  ancient  and 
armed,  mentioned  by  Pausanias,  and  a later  statue,  reproduced  on  the  coins,  but 
ignored  by  Pausanias.  Similar  instances  are  not  unfrequent.  The  old  image  of 
Artemis  Laphria  seen  by  the  pcriegetc  at  Patrai  is  not  reproduced  on  coins,5  while 
the  later  cultus-statue  appears  on  coins  but  is  passed  over  by  Pausanias.  An  old 
idol  of  this  kind,  if  we  may  assume  its  existence  at  Corinth,  would  find  an  analogy 
in  the  armed  figures  of  Aphrodite  in  Cyprus,  Ivythera,  and  Sparta,0  especially  as 
the  Corinthian  worship  was  derived  from  Kythera7  and  closely  connected  with  the 
Peloponnesian  pre-Dorian  cultus  of  the  armed  goddess  in  Sparta.  We  conclude, 
then,  that  the  shield  is  not  derived  from  Ares,  since  the  goddess  is  not  worshipped 
with  Ares  in  Corinth,  but  that  it  is  a survival  of  the  old  tradition  of  an  armed 
image.  The  notion  of  an  armed  Goddess  of  Love  being  unintelligible  to  a younger 
generation,  it  had  to  be  modified  and  humanized  as  in  our  statue. 

The  same  change  is  to  be  noticed  in  other  representations  of  divinities  in  the 
Praxitelean  period.  Apollo  Sauroktonos  plays  with  the  lizard  which  in  some  older 
conception  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  his  attribute.  The  Artemis  Brauronia,  as 
she  puts  on  her  upper  robe,  delicately  reminds  the  spectator  of  the  ritual  presentation 
of  garments.  The  Apollo  Smintheus  of  Skopas,  which  replaced  an  older  image, 
sports  with  the  mouse  which  in  older  days  was  sacred  to  him.  So  our  Aphrodite 
lays  aside  her  heavy  armour,  but  keeps  the  shield  to  mirror  her  loveliness. 

We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  if  we  assume  that  the  original  of  the  Capuan  type  was 
made  for  Corinth  in  the  fourth  century,  that  it  disappeared  when  the  city  was  sacked 
(while  the  old  idol,  valuable  only  in  a religious  and  not  in  an  artistic  sense,  may  have 
been  spared),8  and  that  at  the  time  of  the  new  colonization  its  place  was  supplied  by 
a copy  which,  to  judge  by  the  coins,  reproduced  the  original,  only  with  reversed  sides. 
It  is  just  possible,  but  less  likely,  that  the  original  existed  in  Roman  times  in  some 
locality  where  Aphrodite  was  worshipped  in  conjunction  with  Ares,  and  that  the 

1 Cf.  Preller-Robert,  Gr.  Myth.  i.  340,  and  Paus.  iii.  17,  5. 

2 vaiSiou,  according  to  Strabo,  viii.  p.  379.  The  coins  differ  greatly  in  the  reproduction  of  the  temple. 

:i  Imhoof-Blumer  and  P.  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  G,  121  sqq.,  p.  25  seq  ; PI.  D,  63  (with  Poseidon).  All 
the  coins  with  one  exception  have  the  sides  reversed  as  compared  with  the  Capuan  statue,  hence  they  probably 
reproduce  the  attitude  of  the  Corinthian  cultus-image.  In  the  one  exception,  Imhoof-Gardner,  PI.  FF  xiii.  (coin 
of  Commodus  in  Berlin),  the  change  is  probably  necessitated  by  the  grouping  of  the  figure  with  Herakles. 

4 Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  loc.  cit.  ; Head,  Hist.  Num.  p.  340. 

5 Studniczka,  Rom.  Mitth.  iii.  (1888),  297  seq. 

6 Cf.  PreIler-Rober%  Gr.  Alyth.  i.  357.  Aphrodite  is  called  apeia  and  4v6tt\ios  in  Sparta,  lyx^ios  in  Cyprus, 
and  OTpaTeta  in  Caria. 

7 Cf.  Alkiphron  apud  Preller-Robert,  i.  350,  A,  2. 

8 We  learn  from  Pausanias  that  several  archaic  idols  had  been  preserved  in  Corinth.  Cf.  Imhoof-Gardner, 
loc.  cit.  p.  10. 


APHRODITE  WITH  THE  SHIELD 


389 


Corinthians  of  the  time  had  a copy  made  from  it  without  reference  to  their  own  local 
cultus.  The  older  armed  image,  to  which,  as  I believe,  Pausanias  refers,  is  decided 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  first  view. 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  original  of  the  Capuan  statue  belonged 
to  the  fourth  century.  This  is  plain  from  the  reasons  already  adduced,  and  from  the 
style,  notably  of  the  head  (P  ig.  1 7 1 ). 

The  Capuan  statue,  which  was  found  in  the  amphitheatre  renewed  under  Hadrian, 
had  been  correctly  assigned  to  this  Emperor’s  period,1  and  bears  every  mark  of  the 
time  in  its  style.  The  cold 
elegance  of  the  workmanship, 
the  dry  mannerism  with  which 
the  hair  is  treated,  the  plastic 
indication  of  the  pupils,  the 
dead  smoothness  of  the  flesh, 
even  the  profile  of  the  plinth 
are  characteristic,  and  for 
some  time  prevented  due  ap- 
preciation of  the  value  of  the 
figure.  Fortunately  however 
we  possess  in  a marble  bust  in 
the  Palazzo  Cactani  at  Rome 
an  earlier  and  more  lifelike 
copy  at  any  rate  of  the  head 
(Fig.  172).2  Careful  compari- 
son will  show  that  this  head 
must  be  referred  to  the  same 
original  as  the  Capuan  statue. 

The  only  variations  are  a fillet 
instead  of  a diadem,  and  the 
absence  of  the  small  ends  of 
hair  on  the  back  of  the  neck. 

The  diadem  is  a usual  Roman 
adornment  of  Venus,  and  is 
probably  added  by  the  copyist.  The  simple  fillet,  on  the  other  hand,  belongs 
to  Aphrodite  in  Praxitelean  art,  and  is  therefore  likely  to  be  an  original  feature. 
The  Victory  of  Brescia  affords  another  proof  that  the  fillet  is  correct  ; she 
wears  a similar  one  (except  that  a laurel-wreath  is  engraved  on  it),  and  it 
can  be  derived  only  from  the  original,  which  is  identical  with  the  original  of 
the  Capuan  statue.  That  the  Caetani  head  is  not  a copy  of  the  Victory  of  Brescia 
(as  I stated  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  414),  and,  in  fact,  does  not  belong  to  a Nike 
statue  at  all,  is  plain  not  only  from  an  accurate  comparison  of  the  two,  but  also 
from  the  measurements.  The  Caetani  head  corresponds  in  proportions  to  the  Capua 
type,  the  Brescia  statue  stands  alone.  The  latter  is  an  independent  Roman  modifi- 
cation of  the  Aphrodite,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  drapery.  The  artist  kept  fairly 
near  his  original  in  the  workmanship  of  the  head,  but  did  not  attempt  to  make  an 

1 Bernouilli,  Aphrod.  p.  161. 

Matz-Duhn  ( Zerstr . Bildw.  in  Rom.  797)-  Von  Duhn  was  the  first  to  call  special  attention  to  the  head  ; 
Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1454.  Said  to  he  intact  ; I have  not  seen  the  original.  From  the  shape,  probably 
a bust,  and  not  intended  for  insertion  into  a statue  (in  which  case  the  piece  to  be  let  in  would  be  longer  in 
front,  and  narrower  on  the  shoulders). 


Fig.  171. — Head  of  Venus  of  Capua. 


Fig.  172. — Head  in  Palazzo  Caetani  (Rome). 


SKOPASIAN  AND  PRAXITELEAN  APHRODITES 


391 


exact  copy.  The  face  is  shorter  and  broader,  and  by  making  the  lips  thinner  he  has 
omitted  a distinctly  Aphrodisian  trait.  He  probably  added  the  little  curls  in  front 
of  the  ear.  The  empty  soulless  expression  of  the  face  shows  how  totally  unable  this 
Roman  artist  was  to  impart  to  his  work  any  quality  corresponding  to  the  spirituality 
of  the  Greek  original.  In  studying  the  Capuan  type,  then,  we  had  better  leave  the 
Victory  out  of  the  argument,  and  keep  to  authentic  copies.1  Of  these  the  Caetani 
bust  seems  to  be  the  most  faithful  ; although  a coarser  version  of  the  original,  it 
yet  is  uniform  in  style,  and  nothing  extraneous  has  been  added.  This  style,  as  need 
scarcely  be  remarked,  is  that  of  the  circle  of  Praxiteles  and  of  Skopas.  This  is  especially 
marked  in  the  simply  parted  hair,  which  forms  an  angle  over  the  forehead,  is  con- 
fined by  a smooth  band,  and  worked  without  deep  shadows.2  In  the  facial  forms, 
moreover,  it  is  impossible  not  to  recognize  the  character  of  that  period. 

In  judging  of  details  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  whether  we  have  to  imagine  an 
original  of  marble  or  of  bronze.  The  question  of  material  is  more  important  in  con- 
nexion with  the  fourth  than  with  the  fifth  century  B.C.  In  the  fifth  century  marble 
and  bronze  were  similarly  worked  (cf.  p.  7)  ; in  the  fourth  century,  with  Skopas  and 
Praxiteles,  was  developed  a technique  peculiar  to  marble.  The  wonderful  freedom  in 
the  treatment  of  masses  of  hair  and  the  delicate  indication  of  roots,  to  cite  only  one 
point,  which  we  see  in  extant  originals  such  as  the  Hermes,  the  Eubouleus,  the 
Petworth  Aphrodite,  the  head  from  the  south  slope  of  the  Akropolis,  and  the  Demeter 
of  Knidos,  and  which  we  can  divine  from  copies  such  as  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos,  would 
be  impossible  in  bronze.  Copies  of  the  Sauroktonos  show  how  Praxiteles  treated 
bronze  hair.  Our  Aphrodite  is  evidently  derived  from  bronze,  not  from  marble,  and  is 
analogous  to  the  Sauroktonos,  not  to  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos  and  other  works  whose 
originals  are  to  be  imagined  as  marble.  The  hair  is  not  loosely  massed,  but  defined 
from  root  to  point  in  separate  locks  that  show  great  variety  of  form.  On  the  knot  of 
hair  at  the  back  and  on  other  parts  of  the  head  are  marks  of  incision,  evidently  an 
imitation  of  bronze  technique.  The  motive  of  the  statue,  an  extended  arm  holding  a 
shield,  is  much  more  appropriate  to  bronze  than  to  marble. 

It  is  instructive  to  compare  with  the  Caetani  head  similar  conceptions  as  treated  by 
Praxiteles.  The  Aphrodite  of  Knidos  (p.  322)  is  a good  instance  for  our  purpose,  and  the 
Venus  of  Arles  (p.  320)  a still  better  one,  because  the  pose  of  the  head  is  similar  to  that 
of  the  Caetani  Aphrodite,  and  the  motive,  a mirror,  is  probably  the  same.  The  Caetani 
Aphrodite  differs  materially  from  both  these  types.  At  the  first  glance  we  notice  the 
absence  of  the  long  regular  oval  face  so  characteristic  of  the  Praxitelean  school,  we 
miss  the  marvellous  harmony  and  calm  conveyed  by  the  gentle  and  even  balance  of 
the  face-curves  from  centre  to  sides  and  from  sides  to  centre.  Here  the  lines  are 
restless  and  broken,  and  seem  to  crowd  to  the  front.  The  hair  forms  a less  regular 
angle  on  the  forehead,  which  is  wider,  especially  at  its  base,  the  eyebrows  are  thicker, 
the  cheek-bones  broader,  the  setting  of  the  eyes  more  marked.  The  inner  corners  of 
the  eyes  are  deeply  sunk — almost  drawn  into  the  head — and  at  a higher  level  than  the 
outer  corners.  The  nose  projects  more,  making  a less  perpendicular  profile.  The 
nostrils  swell  as  if  breathing.  But  the  mouth  shows  the  most  decided  difference  of  all. 
The  lips  are  fuller  and  more  animated,  the  raised  upper  lip  is  strongly  curved,  the 
lower  one  has  a strong  dent  in  the  middle.  The  ear,  too,  has  its  own  peculiar  form, 

1 The  marble  head  worked  into  a bust  in  the  possession  of  Count  SLoganoff  in  St.  Petersburg  is  a replica 
of  the  Capuan  statue.  Another  is  in  the  Coll.  Barracco,  Rome  ; Coll.  Barracco,  p.  60,  60  a.  Helbig  (text,  p.  46) 
does  not  recognize  it.  A much-restored  head  in  the  Louvre  known  to  me  only  from  Ravaisson,  V.  de  A/.  PI.  5> 

3,  is  possibly  a copy.  2 Cf.  Samm.  Sabouroff,  i.  Skitlpt.  Introd.  p.  II  sqq. 


392 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


unlike  that  observed  in  those  two  Praxitelean  heads.  Instead  of  standing  upright  it 
lies  over  towards  the  back.  The  hollow  is  small,  the  cartilaginous  part  broader  with 
decided  protuberances,  the  lobe  is  small  and  delicate,  and  completely  joined  to  the 
head  in  front.  What  we  lose  in  grace,  harmony,  and  repose  by  comparison  with 
Praxiteles  we  gain  in  a more  individual  expression,  in  a more  vigorous  life,  and  in  the 
fiery  energy  of  mouth  and  eye. 

Now  the  contrasts  noted  above  are  practically  the  very  same  that  mark  off  the 
works  of  Skopas  from  those  of  Praxiteles.1  The  Caetani  head  possesses,  in  common 
with  Skopasian  heads,  not  only  expression  and  structure,  i.e.  the  short  broad 
face,  but  even  details  such  as  the  shape  of  the  ears,  the  breathing  nostrils, 
and  the  raised  upper  lip.  The  few  points  of  difference  are  not  noticeable  enough 
to  warrant  us  in  ascribing  the  work  to  any  other  artistic  individuality.  We  must 
remember,  too,  that  this  is  only  a copy,  and  that  the  subject  is  a new  one  in  the 
Skopasian  school.  The  head  is  looking  down  instead  of  up  ; hence  the  upper  eyelids 
are  plainly  seen,  instead  of  nearly  disappearing  as  they  do  in  those  other  heads  to 
which  an  upward  gaze  has  been  given. 

The  Skopasian  type  represented  by  the  Caetani  head  is  not  isolated.  Several 
other  monuments  are  closely  analogous  to  it.  The  head  of  a Leda2  in  Florence 
shows  great  similarity  in  hair,  fillet,  forehead,  and  eyes,  and  although  of  poor 
workmanship  it  must  be  referred  to  an  original  by  the  artist  of  the  Caetani  head 
or  by  one  of  his  imitators.  More  significant  is  a head  of  rich,  strong  beauty,  adjusted 
to  a statue  called  ‘ Giunone,’  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  ; it  bears  unmistakable 
analogies  to  fourth-century  types  (Fig.  173); 3 4 in  the  forehead,  eyes,  and  breathing 
nostrils  it  recalls  the  Caetani  head  ; at  any  rate,  it  comes  nearer  to  the  Skopasian  than 
to  the  Praxitelean  school.  We  must  of  course  beware  of  imagining  that  all  Skopasian 
heads  must  have  the  intense  upward  look  to  be  seen  in  many  works  of  the  school.1 
Further,  in  the  Jacobsen  collection,  in  Copenhagen,  there  is  a head  of  Aphrodite 
which,  though  a poor  and  much-defaced  copy,  shows  the  distinguishing  marks 
of  the  style  of  Skopas.5  A colossal  head  in  the  Hermitage  may,  on  the  other 
hand,  be  a Hellenistic  adaptation6  of  the  Caetani  type. 

We  have  seen  that  the  head  of  the  shield-bearing  Aphrodite  should  be  ascribed 
to  the  school  of  Skopas.  Turning  now  to  the  body,  and  comparing  it  with  that  of  the 
Knidian  Aphrodite  for  instance,  we  shall  be  struck  by  the  elasticity  and  vigour  of  our 
statue,  due  to  the  greater  spareness  and  slenderness  of  hips  and  breasts,  while  the 
heavier  build  of  the  Knidian  goddess  seems  to  betoken  easy  negligent  repose.  This 
distinction  is  in  keeping  with  what  we  know  of  the  different  tendencies  of  Praxiteles 
and  of  Skopas.  Specially  peculiar  to  the  Capuan  type7  are  the  sloping  shoulders  and 

1 Botho  Graf,  Rom.  Mittli.  4,  1889,  p.  189  sqq . Cf.  Von  Sybel  in  Liitzow' s Zeitsclirift  fur  bild.  Kunst , 
N.  F.  ii.  249  sqq. 

2 Diitschke,  Uffizicn,  192  ; Overbeck,  Zeus , p.  5^4  > Miiller-Wieseler,  Denkm.  2,  44.  Cast  in  Dresden. 
A replica  in  the  courtyard  of  the  Naples  Museum. 

3 For  literature  cf.  Helbig,  Museums,  i.  532.  The  head  is  inserted  into  the  statue,  not  broken.  It 
is  of  different  marble,  still  it  might  belong  to  the  statue,  were  not  the  style  so  different.  It  is  of  fouith- 
century  style,  while  the  body  is  Hellenistic  and  Pergamene.  Cast  of  the  head  in  Dresden.,  fionr  the  Mengs 
collection. 

4 Graf  {loc.  cit.  p.  218)  admits  that  the  female  head  of  the  Capitol  (cf.  also  Helbig,  Museums,  i,  445),  which 
he  classifies  as  Skopasian,  has  been  worked  over  and  intensified.  I should  go  further,  and  say  that  it  is  a decidedly 
Hellenistic  development,  a long  way  removed  from  Skopas. 

5 Ny  Carlsberg  Glypt.  1073.  Mouth,  nose,  and  other  portions  are  restored.  The  hair  is  simply  arranged 
in  a knot,  without  fillet.  Already  Helbig  had  with  fine  insight  recognized  an  Aphrodite  in  this  work. 

8 D’Escamps,  Marbres  Campana,  PI.  38  ; Guedeonow,  Enmt.  1 75- 

7 In  this  respect  the  replica  grouped  with  Ares  in  the  Florentine  copy  agrees  with  the  Capuan  statue. 


3 K 


Fig.  173. — Head  in  the  Capitol.  (From  the  cast.) 


394 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


the  rounded  breasts,  which  are  more  globe-shaped  than  in  the  Praxitelean 
Aphrodites. 

In  the  drapery,  again,  fourth-century  taste  is  conspicuous.1  The  rolled  drapery 
about  the  hips  is  peculiarly  characteristic,  and  is  found  on  countless  Attic  grave-reliefs 
of  the  period.  The  Ludovisi  Ares — an  invention,  as  we  have  seen,  of  Skopas — wears 
drapery  similarly  treated,  and  so  do  the  Niobids.  In  the  latter  connexion,  the 
Florentine  Niobids  should  be  specially  studied,2  for,  though  poor  copies,  they  faithfully 
reproduce  fourth-century  style,  while  the  famous  ‘ Chiaramonti  ’ Niobid3  is  really  not 
a copy  at  all,  but  a free  translation  of  one  of  the  original  figures  into  Hellenistic 
forms.  But  to  resume — the  drapery  of  our  Aphrodite  well  illustrates  the  tendency 
of  Attic  art  in  the  Praxitelean  period  to  despise  decorative  effect  and  aim  straight 
at  truth  of  nature.4 

In  the  agitated  pose  and  slim  proportions  of  our  type  scholars  thought  to 
detect  the  Lysippian  manner.  But  we  have  everywhere  recognized  in  Skopas  the 
precursor  of  Lysippos,  the  artist  whom  Lysippos  most  closely  followed.  Of  those 
works  which  have  been  attributed  to  Lysippos  the  one  most  similar  to  the  Aphrodite 
is  the  ‘Eros  stringing  a bow’;5  the  movement — except  that  it  is  directed  to  the 
other  side — is  almost  identical,  a correspondence  which  makes  it  probable  that  the 
two  compositions  are  related.  The  position  of  the  Aphrodite,  however,  although  full 
of  energy,  is  yet  tranquil  and  firm,  while  the  Eros  has  that  sway  of  the  torso  which 
is  so  distinctive  a mark  of  the  Apoxyomenos.  Now,  as  the  Palatine  Hermes  {supra, 
Fig.  129)  which  we  referred  to  Skopas  had  precisely  the  same  motive,  we  are  bound  to 
consider  whether  the  Eros  also  may  not  be  traceable  to  Skopas.  This,  however,  seems 
to  me  improbable,  owing  to  the  insignificance  of  the  type  of  head. 

We  have  assumed  that,  like  that  of  the  ‘Eros  stringing  a bow,’ 6 the  original 
of  the  Capuan  Aphrodite  was  of  bronze.  This  does  not  invalidate  the  Skopasian 
attribution,  for  not  only  does  Pliny  mention  Skopas  among  the  bronze-workers,  but 
we  know  for  certain  that  his  Aphrodite  Pandemos  at  Elis  riding  the  goat  was  of  bronze, 
and  there  may  have  been  many  other  bronzes  among  the  works  by  him  whose  names 
have  been  handed  down  to  us  without  mention  of  the  material  in  which  they  were 
executed.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Skopas,  any  more  than  Praxiteles, 
worked  solely  in  marble.  Among  the  works  which  we  have  already  brought  into 
connexion  with  Skopas,  some  may  have  been  of  bronze — for  instance,  the  youthful 
Athena  {supra,  Fig.  130). 

There  are  still  a few  more  statues  which  we  venture  to  refer  to  Skopas  because 
of  their  resemblance  to  the  Aphrodite  ; chief  among  them  is  the  Leda  in  Florence 
(for  discussion  of  the  head-type  see  p.  392).  The  torso  and  drapery  are  allied  to  the 
Aphrodite,  the  shoulders  and  the  rounded  but  less  developed  breasts  are  similar.' 
The  motive,  which  has  been  often  misunderstood,  is  free  from  any  voluptuous  sugges- 
tion.8 The  frightened  bird  has  flown  to  the  girl  for  protection  ; she  is  bending  over 
it  and  wrapping  it  in  the  folds  of  her  garment.  The  swan  is  small  in  scale,  as  in 

1 Much  restored  in  the  Capuan  statue.  Better  preserved  in  the  Florence  group. 

2 Cf.  the  hanging  drapery  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Niobe,’  Overbeck,  C. 

3 Helbig,  Museums , 73. 

4 Cf.  Sam/n.  Saboiiroff,  i.  Skultt.  Introd.  p.  14. 

5 Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1362. 

6 Cf.  Helbig,  Museums,  i.  429.  The  Thespian  Eros  of  Lysippos  was  of  bronze. 

7 Note  also  the  bracelet  on  the  right  upper  arm  corresponding  to  the  Florentine  replica  of  the  Capuan  type. 
The  Praxitelean  Aphrodite  wears  it  on  the  left  arm. 

8 Such  as  Overbeck,  Zeus,  p.  514.  O.  Jahn  ( Arch . Beitr.  p.  4)  appreciated  the  group  much  more 
correctly. 


PSYCHE  OF  CAPUA. 


395 


the  earlier  ‘ Leda  ’ monuments,  and  the  whole  conception  is  that  of  the  Greek  terra- 
cottas of  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  B.C.,  and  of  a statue  which  I have  discussed 
elsewhere.1  In  this  case  too  the  figure  should  be  interpreted  rather  as  Nemesis  than 
as  Leda.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  Skopasian  ‘Leda’  with  that  older  oft- 
copied  Leda,  which,  like  the  Barberini  ‘Suppliant,’  to  which  it  is  allied,  must  be 
referred  to  the  fifth  century,  and  to  an  artist  nearly  connected  with  Pheidias.2  It 
is  more  dramatic  and  effective  than  our  Skopasian  statue,  which  is  simpler,  more 
natural,  and  deeper  in  feeling. 

A second  not  less  interesting  work  of  the  same  series  is  the  Psyche  of 
Capua  (Naples),3  which  has  so  often  been  called  Praxitelean,4  but  is  really  a 
very  good  copy  after  a purely  Skopasian  work,  with  the  characteristic  sloping 
shoulders  and  globe-shaped  breasts.  The  latter  have,  it  is  true,  been  somewhat 
worked  over,  but  the  essentials  of  the  form  remain  unchanged : it  is  the  same 
flat,  youthful  breast  that  we  noticed  in  the  Nemesis-Leda.5  There  is  a bracelet 
on  the  right  arm.6  Marks  of  the  Skopasian  Aphrodite  type  in  the  face  are  seen 
in  the  peculiar  mouth,  the  dilated  nostrils,  the  ear  set  slanting  back  with  small 
opening,  the  strongly  marked  ear  cartilage  uneven  in  outline,  and  in  the  lobe 
growing  close  to  the  head.  Such  cumulative  evidence  leaves  no  room  for  doubt 
that  we  have  here  a work  by  the  artist  of  the  Caetani  head.  But  the  interpretation 
of  the  figure  is  not  so  easy.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  it  does  not  represent  Psyche, 
as  was  formerly  supposed.  Aphrodite  would  be  nearer  the  truth.  The  figure  obviously 
leaned  its  weight  on  the  right  leg,  and  the  left  hand  drew  over  the  left  shoulder  the 
drapery  which  shrouded  the  lower  part  of  the  body.7  The  head  was  turned  to  the  right 
and  bent  down.  Perhaps  the  goddess  was  grouped  with  an  Eros  holding  a mirror. 
The  ‘melancholy  character’  of  the  work  cannot  be  urged  against  this  interpretation, 
for  it  is  easy  to  imagine  melancholy  in  a bowed  head  when  we  know  nothing  of  the 
motive.  The  head  is  posed  as  in  the  Capuan  Venus,  only  more  inclined.  This  inclina- 
tion doubtless  formed  the  principal  charm  of  the  figure  in  the  eyes  of  the  artist,  who 
in  this  instance  has  with  characteristic  boldness  gone  beyond  his  prototype.  One  step 
more,  and  we  should  have  the  ‘ Kallipygos  ’ motive  of  the  succeeding  generation. 

A third  beautiful  plastic  conception,  which  we  may  refer  to  a bronze  original 
by  Skopas,  is  the  Hypnos,  represented  by  a marble  copy  in  Madrid  and  a bronze 
head  in  the  British  Museum.8  It  has  long  been  acknowledged  that  the  original  must 
have  been  in  bronze.  This  is  proved  not  only  by  the  extant  remains  of  a bronze 
copy,  but  by  the  vigour  of  the  action,  which,  when  represented  in  marble,  necessitates 
the  presence  of  a meaningless  and  disfiguring  support.  The  style  of  this  work, 

1 Samm.  Sabouroff,  i.  Vases,  Introd.  p.  8 sqq.  2 Ibid.  p.  g seq.  12. 

3 Friederichs-Wolters,  1471.  The  piecings  are  original,  and  not,  as  was  formerly  believed,  due  to  restora- 
tions. Date  first  century  B.C.  The  figure  is  analogous  to  the  Ares  of  the  Conservatori  Palace  (Helbig,  Museums, 
568)  (see  supra,  p.  271),  which  is  also  made  up  of  several  pieces.  Neither  figure  had  wings.  The  working  over 
is  by  no  means  as  bad  as  had  been  supposed  : it  can  be  detected  on  the  breast  in  the  region  of  the  collar-bone, 
but  the  head  has  been  left  absolutely  untouched. 

4 So  lastly  by  Benndorf,  Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch,  di  Roma,  1886,  p.  73. 

5 Cf.  for  the  breasts  of  the  Psyche,  E.  Briicke,  Schonheit  und Fehler  der  Menschliclien  Gestalt,  p.  67. 

0 Cf.  p.  394,  note  7. 

7 E.  Wolff  recognized  this  (Bull.  d.  Inst.  1833,  134)  ; also  Stark  (Sachs.  Ber.  i860,  90).  An  examination  ot 
the  original  will  show  Kekule’s  supposition  (Annali,  1864,  145),  that  the  left  upper  arm  was  wrongly  set  on, 
and  had  originally  been  drawn  back,  to  be  quite  false.  Plis  further  hypothesis,  that  Psyche  was  tied  to  the  tree, 
naturally  becomes  untenable. 

8 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1287,  1288.  For  list  of  small  bronze  replicas  see  Winnefeld,  Hypnos,  p.  8. 
Of  these,  the  Turin  figure  is  published  in  Atti  della  Soc.  di  Archeol.  e Belle  Arli  di  Torino,  iv.  1S83,  Tav.  15, 
p.  1 13,  and  the  two  Lyons  copies  in  Gaz.  Arc  Idol.  1888,  PI.  6.  See  also  Sauer  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2849,  and 
Brunn,  Gbtterideale,  p.  26,  Taf.  3. 


396 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


rightly  attributed  to  the  Praxitelean  epoch,  has  been  likened  to  that  of  the  Sauroktonos,1 
but  the  more  closely  we  look  at  the  head  the  more  clearly  we  shall  see  that  its 
resemblance  to  the  Sauroktonos  is  merely  superficial,  while  it  is  closely  analogous  to 
the  Skopasian  Aphrodite — in  a word,  it  offers  the  same  contrast  to  the  Sauroktonos 
that  the  Aphrodite  of  Skopas  does  to  the  Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles.  We  find  in  the 
Hypnos  a broad  type  of  face  and  a pronounced  bony  structure,  quite  different  from 
the  graceful  elongated  oval  of  the  Sauroktonos.  The  forehead  of  the  latter,  and 
the  wavy  hair  that  frames  it,  correspond  closely  to  the  Venus  of  Arles  and  the 
Knidos  Aphrodite,  while  in  the  Ilypnos  the  forehead  and  the  hair  growing  back  from 
it  so  strongly  resemble  the  Caetani  Aphrodite  that  we  are  justified  in  referring  the 
two  conceptions  to  the  same  artist.  The  dilated  nostrils  of  the  Hypnos  are  character- 
istically Skopasian,  but  the  protuberance  in  the  middle  of  the  forehead,  which,  as 
Brunn  showed,  is  definitely  necessitated  by  the  wings,  is  individual  to  the  divinity 
represented.  Finally,  the  swinging  stride,  recalling  the  Palatine  Apollo,2  and  the 
chiastic  disposition  of  the  limbs  are  much  more  appropriate  to  Skopas  than  to 
Praxiteles,  while,  to  pass  to  the  treatment  of  the  nude,  the  modelling  of  the  abdomen 
and  the  navel  with  its  little  furrow  are  details  more  nearly  related  to  the  Skopasian 
Meleager  than  to  the  Sauroktonos  or  the  Hermes. 

This  magnificent  invention,  then — the  work  of  an  artist  who  went  straight  to  the 
heart  of  his  subject — must  be  assigned  to  the  later  period  of  Skopas’s  activity.  Unlike 
the  Kairos  of  Lysippos,  a composition  carefully  built  up  by  an  effort  of  activity,  this 
conception  flowed  warm  and  living  from  the  soul  of  the  artist.  With  gliding  gait 
and  quiet  pulse  of  wings  the  god  of  sleep  sinks  down  upon  a weary  world.  It  was 
a happy  inspiration  of  Skopas  to  place  the  wings  on  the  head  instead  of  on  the 
shoulders,  as  in  the  earlier  representations  of  Hypnos. 

The  original  of  the  statue  must  surely  have  been  intended  for  one  of  the  few 
shrines  where  Hypnos  was  worshipped.  We  only  know  of  three  such  in  Greece. 
There  was  an  ancient  altar  in  Troezene  which  Hypnos  shared  with  the  Muses  (Paus.  ii. 
31,  3);  statues  of  Hypnos  and  Thanatos  (to  which  a cult  was  probably  attached) 
stood  near  the  Chalkioikos  in  Sparta  (Paus.  iii.  18,  1)  ; in  the  Hieron  of  Asklepios 
at  Epidauros  Hypnos  was  worshipped,  at  least  in  later  times;3  and  finally  the  front 
chamber  of  an  o'U^pca  in  the  peribolos  of  the  sanctuary  of  Asklepios  at  Sikyon 
(Paus.  ii.  10,  2)  was  consecrated  to  him.4  As  Asklepios  was  wont  to  manifest  himself 
to  his  suppliants  in  sleep,  and  Sleep  might  easily  be  personified  as  a daemon  favourable 
to  recovery,  the  connexion  of  the  two  divinities  seems  natural  enough.  Pausanias 
states  that  only  the  head  of  the  figure  was  in  existence  in  the  cella.5  Possibly  the 
original  statue  had  been  stolen,  and  if  so  the  head  Pausanias  saw  must  have  been 
a copy,  for  whoever  took  the  statue  would  not  leave  the  head  behind.  We  know 
that  Skopas  worked  in  Sikyon,  for  Pausanias  refers  to  a Herakles  there  made  by 
him  (probably  reproduced  on  Imperial  coins).6  Hence  it  is  not  impossible  that  the 
statue  in  the  cella  was  also  a work  by  Skopas. 

Other  coins  of  the  Imperial  times  seem  to  show  that  a third  famous  work  of  the 
same  artist,  not  assigned  by  tradition  to  any  special  place,  may  have  belonged  to 

1 Cf.  Murray,  Hist,  of  Gr.  Sculpture,  ii.  259,  where  Benndorf  is  quoted. 

2 Cf.  p.  305,  note  6. 

Cf.  Blinkenberg  in  Nord  Tid-Skrift f.  Filol.  ny  Ranke,  x.  270,  8 ; 273,  20. 

4 The  back  cella  was  consecrated  to  Apollo  Karneios. 

5 In  the  Stoa  which  was  naturally  attached  to  the  Asklepieion,  Pausanias  saw  another  statue  of  Hypnos — ■ 

KUTaKoi/utfav  Xlovra  ; Pausanias  may  be  here  inaccurately  referring  to  the  type  (known  by  later  copies)  of  Hypnos 
sleeping  on  a lion.  {Bull.  d.  Inst.  1877,  122  seq.)  6 Cf.  p.  301,  note  2 


SKOPASIAN  maenad. 


397 


Sikyon.  I refer  to  the  Maenad,  known  to  us  through  two  epigrams  and  a passage  of 
Kallistratos.1  On  the  coins  of  Julia  Domna  in  Sikyon  there  occurs  the  type  of 
a frenzied  Bacchante  which  agrees  with  the  description  in  the  epigrams,2  and  which 
Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner 3 have  pointed  to  as  reproducing  one  of  the  marble 
fti'ucxaL  seen  by  Pausanias  (ii.  7,  5)  in  the  temple  of  Dionysos  at  Sikyon  beside 
the  gold  and  ivory  image  of  the  god.  Pausanias,  as  often,  has  omitted  to  name 
the  artist,  but  it  seems  to  me  highly  probable  that  this  Bacchante,  celebrated  enough 


Fig.  174. — Head  from  Tralles,  in  Smyrna.  (From  the  cast  at  Bonn.) 


to  be  reproduced  on  coins,  Was  actually  the  Bacchante  of  Skopas.  The  flying  drapery, 
floating  gait,  and  rapturous  attitude  show  that  the  original  statue  must  have  borne 
a strong  resemblance  to  the  Apollo  Kithairoidos. 

But  we  must  return  from  this  digression  to  our  special  subject,  the  Venus  of  Milo. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  it  was  based  on  a work  presumably  by  Skopas  ; 

1 Kallistratos  himself  is  probably  dependent  on  the  epigrams  (cf.  Jahrb . d.  Ver.  d.  Alterthums-Freunde  im 
Rheinland,  I left  90,  1891,  p.  66). 

2 As  xii natpotphvos  she  must  have  held  a sword  ; no  such  weapon  can  however  be  distinguished  on  the  coins. 

3 Nnin.  Comm.  p.  29,  PI.  H.  vi.  v. 


39§ 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


thus  it  was  a right  instinct  which  induced  scholars  who  could  not  bring  proofs  to 
confirm  their  impression  to  bring  it  into  connexion  with  this  artist.1  In  spite  of  the 
numerous  modifications,  the  Skopasian  groundwork  is  manifest  not  only  in  external 
details,  such  as  the  arrangement  of  the  fillet  and  of  the  hair  (which  is  however 
effectively  modernized  by  the  addition  of  the  loosened  strands  falling  on  the  neck), 

but  in  the  attempt  to  impart  fire  and  vitality  to 
the  expression.  The  artist  sought  to  heighten 
this  Skopasian  quality.  In  his  desire  to  bring  into 
the  conception  something  of  dignity  and  eleva- 
tion, he  lengthened  the  lower  part  of  the  face, 
thus  returning  to  the  older  manner.  The  suc- 
cessors of  Praxiteles,  in  the  same  way,  tried  to 
outdo  him  in  grace.  The  result  in  each  case  is  a 
slight  exaggeration  of  the  master’s  peculiarities. 
The  Aphrodite  of  Skopas  becomes  the  Venus 
of  Milo,  the  Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles  becomes 
the  Venus  of  Medici. 

It  is  characteristic  of  a later  development 
that  the  firm,  well-knit  forms  of  the  original 
Skopasian  head  have  undergone  in  the  Melian 
statue  a certain  relaxation,  threatening  to  become 
almost  fluid  in  their  lack  of  compactness  and 
definition.  The  same  tendency  may  be  observed 
in  other  heads  of  Hellenistic  date,  notably  in 
the  much-admired  head  from  Pergamon,2  so 
often  compared  with  the  Melian  Aphrodite. 
This  head,  though  doubtless  considerably  older 
than  our  Venus,  shows  the  laxity  of  the 
forms  carried  to  such  a point  that  an  ex- 
pression of  weakness,  almost  amounting  to 
vacancy,  is  the  result.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
beautiful  head  from  Tralles,  now  in  Smyrna 
(Fig.  1 74), 3 belongs  to  the  beginning  of  the 
series,  and  is  not  far  removed  from  Skopas  in 
general  character,  betraying  Hellenistic  taste 
only  in  the  treatment  of  the  hair. 

Mention  must  also  be  made  here  of  a smaller  and  more  widely  known  head  from 
Tralles  which  has  been  brought  into  close  connexion  with  the  Melian  statue,  and  even 
referred  to  the  same  original,4  although  it  has  in  common  with  it  only  quite  general 
traits.  Its  artist  evidently  imitated  Praxiteles,  from  whom  he  may  have  been 
separated  only  by  a generation  or  two.  It  cannot  be  said  that  he  made  a definite 
copy,  but  he  followed  that  master’s  characteristic  rendering  of  form,  such  as  the  delicate 

1 e.g.  Waagen,  Welcker  (Ant.  Denkm.  i.  445),  Stark  (Sticks.  Berichte,  i860,  p.  51),  Urlichs  (Skopas, 

p.  122),  and  B.  Graf  (Rom.  Mitth.  iv.  217)  have  all  in  a more  or  less  degree  pointed  to  the  Skopasian 
characteristics.  2 Ltitzow’s  Zeitschrift  f Bild.  Kunst,  1880,  xv.  161. 

3 In  the  Mus.  of  the  Evang.  School.  Badly  published  in  Bui/.  Corn.  Hell.  1882,  PI.  III.  Cast  at 
Bonn  (Fig.  174). 

4 Benndorf  in  Oesterr.  Plitth.  1880,  Taf.  1,  2 ; p.  66  sqq.  ; Ovei'beck,  Gesch.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  ii.  342  ; 
Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1451  ; R.  v.  Schneider,  Uebersicht  der  Wiener  Kunsthistor.  Samm.  1891,  p.  78, 
interprets  the  head  as  an  Artemis. 


ATTIC  PROTOTYPES. 


399 


oval  of  the  face,  the  dimple  on  the  chin,  the  sweet  expression  ; but  the  whole  conception 
has  become  small,  not  to  say  trifling. 

We  have  seen  (p.  377)  that  the  epigraphy  of  the  inscription  allows  us  to  date 
the  Venus  of  Milo  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  though  the  period 
between  150  and  50  B.C.  was  more  probably  that  in  which  the  Venus  was  made. 
The  stylistic  peculiarities  now  confirm  this  later 
date.  The  hair  is  arranged,  as  we  have  already 
said,  in  the  fourth-century  manner,  but  the  treatment 
is  in  marked  contrast  to  fourth-century  work.  What 
hard  rendering  of  the  roots  of  the  hair  on  the  fore- 
head, what  lifeless  parallel  grooves  in  the  strands  that 
are  combed  back  ! The  above-mentioned  head  from 
Pergamon,  which  belongs  probably  to  the  third  cen- 
tury, illustrates  the  exact  reverse  of  this  procedure. 

The  artist  has  arranged  the  hair  according  to  the 
fashion  of  his  time,  but  in  the  delicate  indication  of 
the  growth  of  the  hair  and  in  the  light  treatment  of 
the  region  round  the  eye  he  preserves  the  best  tradi- 
tions of  fourth-century  work — traditions  which  seem 
to  have  been  unknown  to  the  artist  of  the  Melian 
statue. 

In  determining  the  style  of  our  Aphrodite,  the 
drapery  is  also  of  very  great  importance.  Here  the 
artist  has  definitely  altered  his  Skopasian  model. 

He  has  rejected  the  treatment  which  aims  at  simple 
truth  of  nature,  and  has  chosen  instead — not  the 
usual  Hellenistic  manner,  as  shown  in  the  marbles 
of  Pergamon — but,  strangely  enough,  the  manner 
of  the  Parthenon  pediment  figures.1  The  stuff  lies 
in  large  unbroken  masses,  with  sharp  edges  and 
no  cross  folds,  and  it  clings  to  the  nude  parts  as  if 
moistened.  Only  on  the  right  thigh  does  it  show 
a touch  of  Hellenistic  taste.  To  this  large  massive 
treatment  of  drapery  we  owe  the  theory,  not  with- 
out adherents  even  at  the  present  day,  that  the 
statue  is  by  a successor  of  Pheidias.  In  my  view 
this  imitation  is  precisely  what  shows  the  statue  to  belong  to  that  Renascence  which, 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  embodied  a reaction  against  the  extravagance 
of  the  Hellenistic  school.  The  Belvedere  Herakles  torso  is  a work  of  kindred  ten- 
dency. Here  the  nude  is  treated  according  to  Pheidian  tradition,2  and  without  any  of 
the  realism  in  which  the  art  of  Pergamon  excelled.  A comparison  of  the  Venus  of 
Milo  with  the  Venus  of  Medici  will  convince  us  that  the  Melian  figure  shows  a return 
to  Pheidias  not  only  in  the  draped  but  also  in  the  nude  parts.3  The  impression  of 
grandeur  of  style  which  the  statue  has  always  made  was  intentionally  aimed  at  by  the 
artist.  It  is  probable  also  that  the  statues  of  the  Pheidian  school  which  gradually 
lead  up  to  this  motive  were  not  unknown  to  him.  Perhaps  the  statue  of  Aphrodite 

1 Cf.  Overbeck,  Gcsch.  d.  Plastik , 3rd  ed.  ii.  341. 

2 Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  2182,  20. 

3 Cf,  Waagen,  KunstwerH  itnd  Kunstler  in  Paris,  p.  108, 


Fig.  176. — Statue  in  Pal.  Valentini. 
(Restorations  omitted.) 


400 


THE  VENUS  OF  MILO 


Ourania,  in  Elis,  by  Pheidias,  with  the  left  foot  on  a tortoise,  was  the  origin  of  the 
whole  series.1 

An  excellent  work  of  art  belonging  to  the  generation  after  Pheidias,  probably  an 
Aphrodite,  is  preserved  to  us  in  two  copies  in  the  Palazzo  Valentini  2 and  the  Palazzo 
Odescalchi  at  Rome  (Figs.  175,  176).  This  figure  shows  so  many  points  of  analogy  to 
the  Venus  of  Milo,  more  especially  in  those  particulars  where  the  latter  differs  from 
its  Capuan  original,  that  we  may  very  well  imagine  that  the  artist  in  his  adaptation 
of  the  Aphrodite  of  Skopas  consciously  emulated  the  style  of  some  such  Pheidian 
prototype. 

Aphrodite  here,  as  always  in  the  Pheidian  period,  wears  the  chiton  under  the 
mantle.  It  clings  closely  to  the  body,  thus  forming  an  almost  transparent  covering, 
in  the  manner  of  the  sculptures  on  the  Nike  balustrade  and  of  the  Aphrodite  of 
Alkamenes.  The  left  foot  is  advanced  but  not  raised,  and  the  form  of  the  left  leg  is 
distinctly  seen  through  the  mantle,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  The 
sharply  defined  curves  of  the  mantle  wrapped  round  the  body  and  enveloping  the 
right  leg,  on  which  the  weight  of  the  body  is  supported,  show  the  breadth  of  concep- 
tion, the  combined  wealth  and  animation  of  forms  which  characterize  the  school  of  Phei- 
dias from  the  epoch  of  the  Parthenon  pediments  onwards.  The  Hera  of  Ephesos  (p.  84, 
note  4)  and  the  so-called  Barberini  Hera  (p.  82)  are  similar  works,  but  the  Aphrodite 
Valentini  far  surpasses  them  in  beauty  and  richness  of  drapery.  One  of  the  fragments 
of  the  reliefs  by  Agorakritos  3 is  very  closely  related  to  the  Valentini  figure.  Again, 
the  head  of  the  figure,  with  its  large  full  forms,  its  forehead  high  in  the  middle,  and 
its  delicate  roots  of  hair,  finds  its  nearest  analogies  in  two  statues  which  we  have 
already  ascribed  to  Agorakritos  (p.  88),  i.e.  the  Barberini  Apollo  and  the  Athena  of 
the  Capitol,  and  this  circumstance  gives  some  weight  to  the  belief  that  the  Valentini 
Aphrodite  is  to  be  referred  to  Agorakritos.  There  is  the  same  dignity  and  majesty 
of  pose,  the  same  expression  of  frank  victorious  pride,  that  we  saw  in  other  works  by 
the  same  hand. 

The  artist  of  the  Mclian  Aphrodite  has  tried  to  catch  at  least  a ray  of  inspiration 
from  Agorakritos,  but  his  work,  as  we  have  shown,  must  be  dated  not  earlier  than  the 
Renascence  of  the  second  century  B.C.  This  chronology  is  confirmed  by  a purely 
external  circumstance — the  appearance  of  the  inscription  on  an  integral  part  of  the 
statue.  This  is  without  any  analogy  before  the  end  of  the  second  century  B.C.4 
Previous  to  that  time,  with  the  exception  of  course  of  the  archaic  period,  it  was  the 
invariable  custom  of  artists  to  sign  their  statues  on  the  pedestal  ; after  this  date,  prob- 
ably in  order  to  insure  permanence  in  case  the  statue  should  be  removed,  signatures 
were  placed  on  some  block — such,  for  instance,  as  the  supports — which  was  intimately 
connected  with  the  statue. 

The  Venus  of  Milo,  then,  belongs  to  a series  of  works  executed  in  the  latter  half  of 

1 Cf.  p.  72  seq.  In  a recently  acquired  statue  in  Berlin,  see  p.  73;  n°te  ( Arch . Anz.  1893,  p.  74;  and 
Kekule,  Weibliche  Gewandfigur , etc.),  the  left  foot  is  placed  higher.  In  Stackelberg’s  terra-cotta  ( Grdber , 
Taf.  69)  the  foot  is  only  slightly  raised,  and  in  the  terra-cotta  {Rev.  Arch.  1891,  i.  PI.  6,  p.  289;  Th.  Reinach) 
from  the  Troad,  probably  a copy  of  a statue,  it  is  raised  extraordinarily  high. 

- Pal.  Valentini:  Guattani,  Mon.  Ant.  ined.,  1788,  Tav.  2;  Clarac,  698,  1655;  Matz-Duhn,  Zerstr.  Bild- 
zverke,  No.  606  ; Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  414.  The  left  arm  and  lower  right  arm  and  the  cymbals  are  restored.  The 
copyist  has  neglected  to  give  the  Ionic  sleeve  on  the  left  arm.  The  head  is  broken,  but  belongs  to  the  figure. 
The  left  hand  evidently  drew  the  mantle  up  over  the  shoulder.  Thick  sandals  on  the  feet.  Large  eyes. 
Good,  intelligent  workmanship. — Poorer  replica  in  Pal.  Odescalchi.  Head,  lower  right  arm,  and  left  arm  are 
restored  (Matz-Duhn,  605). 

3 ’E<f>7)|U.  apx ■ 1891,  Taf.  9,  I.  Cf.  p.  85. 

4 The  earliest  examples  are  the  Borghese  Gladiator  by  Agasias  (Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  292  ; ibid.  293,  343) rin<^  Ihe 
Belvedere  torso  (cf.  Lowy,  p.  350). 


DATE  AND  AESTHETIC  POSITION 


401 


the  second  and  first  century  B.C.,  and  many  of  which  are  of  considerable  excellence. 
The  artist  took  his  motive  from  a creation  of  Skopas,  which  he  modified  con- 
siderably, and  contaminated,  not  altogether  happily,  with  the  type  of  the  Tyche  of 
Melos.  At  the  same  time  he  strove  to  impart  to  it  something  of  Pheidian  grandeur. 
So  far  then  he  showed  independence  in  his  modification  of  the  style,  inasmuch  as 
he  drew  his  inspiration  from  older  Attic  art,  and  sought  to  emulate  it.  Call  him 
‘ eclectic  ’ if  you  will,  he  was  at  least  a man  who  could  make  a traditional  type  his 
own,  and  reproduce  it  with  all  the  freshness  of  a new  conception.  The  pleasure 
arising  from  this  quality  in  his  work  should  not  be  lessened  by  the  scientific  analysis 
to  which  we  have  subjected  the  statue. 


a 


F 


THE  APOLLO  OP  THE  BELVEDERE 


THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 


SELDOM  has  any  archaeological  hypothesis  met 
with  such  enthusiastic  and  universal  approval 
as  did  the  famous  contention  published  by 
Stephani  in  i860  concerning  the  Apollo  of  the  Belve- 
dere. Ever  since  that  time  it  has  been  considered 
practically  certain  that  the  god  bore  an  aegis  in  his 
left  hand.  This  view  soon  made  its  way  into  every 
popular  handbook  as  an  ascertained  result  of  modern 
archaeology,1  although  the  only  evidence  for  it  was  a 
doubtful  fragment  in  the  hand  of  a bronze  replica  of 
the  Apollo  belonging  to  Count  Stroganofif  in  St.  Peters- 
burg. Not  only  was  Stephani’s  identification  of  this 
fragment  accepted  almost  without  dissent,  but  con- 
fidence was  carried  to  such  a pitch  that  his  further 
vague  and  entirely  unfounded  supposition,  that  the 
statuette  was  part  of  the  great  bronze  find  made  at 
Paramythia  in  1792 — a statement  evidently  intended  to  increase  the  value  of  the 
statuette — was  accepted  as  a proven  fact  even  in  scientific  circles.2  In  reality,  the 
statuette  had  been  traced  back  to  Italy,  and  no  further. 

When  for  the  first  time  I saw  the  Stroganoff  bronze  in  1882,  I was  to  my 
astonishment  at  once  convinced  that,  whatever  might  be  the  meaning  of  the  frag- 
ment in  the  left  hand,  it  had  never  formed  part  of  an  aegis.3  In  1883,  however, 
Kieseritzky  defended  Stephani’s  view,4  which  henceforth  passed  almost  unchallenged. 
I made  no  answer  at  the  time,  as  I wished  first  to  examine  the  bronze  again  ; 
accordingly,  in  the  article  ‘Apollo’  written  in  1883  for  Roscher’s  Lexikon , I stated 
circumspectly  that  the  fragment  of  the  attribute  had  not  yet  been  fully  explained.5 
This  reserve  was,  to  my  regret,  misunderstood  in  some  quarters  : I was  supposed 
to  be  incapable  of  acknowledging  an  error,6  and  faith  in  Stephani  remained  unshaken. 

1 See  Helbig,  Fiihrer , No.  158;  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1523;  Preller-Robert,  Griech.  Myth. 
i.  295. 

" Overbeck,  Apollo , p.  248  ; Helbig,  Fiihrer,  i.  106.  The  figure  resembling  the  Apollo  Belvedere — of 
which  we  know  neither  the  material  nor  the  provenance — given  by  Veli  Pasha  to  Dr.  Frank  cannot  have  been 
one  of  the  exquisite  bronzes  found  at  Paramythia  in  1792,  and  may  easily  have  been  a forgery.  This  is  again  a 
perfectly  arbitrary  and  improbable  conjecture  of  Stephani.  The  Pasha  was  not  such  an  ignorant  fool  as  to 
present  an  object  of  such  value,  even  supposing  him  to  have  had  it  to  give,  to  a person  like  Dr.  Frank. 

3 Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  247.  4 Arch.  Ztg.  1S83,  27.  5 Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  465. 

6 Studniczka,  Wiener  Zeitschrift fiir  Gymnasiahvesen,  1886,  p.  682. 


406 


THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 


Opposition  was  silent  till  1887,  when  almost  simultaneously  two  scholars,  A.  Gercke 
and  O.  A.  Hoffmann,  showed  by  a number  of  incontrovertible  proofs  derived  from 
ancient  literature  that  the  notion  of  Apollo  bearing  the  aegis  and  victorious  over 
the  Gauls  was  simply  an  erroneous  modern  fancy.1  In  1889  O.  A.  Hoffmann 
proceeded  to  an  investigation  of  the  Stroganoff  bronze,  and  maintained  that 
Kieseritzky’s  defence  of  the  aegis  theory  was  self-contradictory  and  out  of  harmony 
with  facts.2  Gherardo  Ghirardini  followed  him  on  the  same  lines,  and  in  an  elaborate 
treatise  emphatically  denied  the  existence  of  the  aegis.3 4 5  He  deplored  that  the  argu- 
ments adduced  by  me  in  1882  had  hitherto  met  with  so  little  notice,  and  hoped  for  a 
speedy  change  of  opinion.  Nevertheless  Helbig,  in  his  Fiihrer  durch  die  Sammlungen 
Roms?  1891,  set  aside  as  unimportant  every  objection  to  the  prevailing  theory.  On 
the  other  hand,  F.  Winter,  in  his  admirable  treatise  on  the  Belvedere  statue,  published 
in  1 892,®  decided  to  leave  the  bronze  statuette  and  its  would-be  aegis  entirely  out  of 
the  discussion. 

In  the  spring  of  1891  I carefully  examined  for  the  second  time  the  Stroganoff 
bronze,  which  was  then  accessible  to  the  public  on  certain  days.  All  at  once  the 
scales  fell  from  my  eyes : the  solution  of  the  problem  was  infinitely  simpler  than  had 
ever  been  imagined — the  bronze  is  nothing  but  a pool ' and  absolutely  valueless  modern 
forgery ,6 

Since  the  year  1882,  when  I first  saw  the  statuette,  I had  had  every  opportunity 
of  training  my  eye  to  appreciate  the  distinctions  between  real  and  false  bronzes,  in  the 
course  of  my  work  at  the  Berlin  Museum,  where  a great  number  of  forged  bronzes 
from  different  collections  have  been  specially  brought  together  for  purposes  of  study. 
In  1882  I failed  to  detect  the  forgery,  partly  from  lack  of  practice,  and  partly  because 
the  trammels  of  authority  were  too  strong  to  allow  of  doubt  where  a figure  so  famous 
was  in  question. 

The  statuette — which  however  is  not  small,  but  one  third  life-size — shows  not  a 
trace  of  the  genuine  patina  which  appears  on  all  antique  bronzes  that  have  really  been 
excavated.7 8  This  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  the  modern  origin.  There  is  another  point 
which  any  one  can  appreciate  without  having  seen  the  original.  A support  under  the 
raised  left  heel  exactly  corresponds  to  a similar  support  in  the  Belvedere  statue.  Now 
this  detail  is  throughout  antiquity  specially  characteristic  of  marble  work.  When  one 
foot  of  a statue  was  set  back  with  raised  heel,  it  was  usual  to  leave  under  the  foot  the 
piece  of  marble  connecting  it  with  the  plinth.  This  was  done  to  afford  support  to 
the  foot  and  to  prevent  it  from  breaking.  In  a metal  figure,  which  is  cast  separate 
from  the  base,  such  a support  is  absolutely  meaningless.  It  is  therefore  never  found 
in  real  antique  bronzes,  and  its  presence  here  satisfactorily  shows  that  the  statuette  is 
a copy  of  the  Vatican  figure. 

Again,  the  statuette  is  very  badly  cast  and  full  of  small  holes.s  These  are  not 
repaired  in  the  usual  antique  way,  i.e.  with  small  rectangular  patches,  but  roughly  filled 

1 A.  Gercke,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1887,  260;  O.  A.  Hoffmann,  ‘Aegis  oder  Bogen  ? ’ Jahresber.  d.  Lyceums  zu 

J\Ictz , 1887.  2 Herm-Apollo  Stroganoff,  Marburg  1889. 

a Bulla  della  Comtniss.  Arch.  Com.  di  Roma,  1889,  407,  45  *• 

4 Vol.  i.  p.  no.  [For  Helbig’s  latest  views  see  Museums , 160. — E.S.] 

5 Jahrb.  d.  Arch.  Inst.  1892,  p.  164. 

5 I at  once  communicated  this  discovery  to  Kieseritzky,  who  later  passed  it  on  to  Conze.  In  a note 
in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1892,  p.  164,  Conze  pronounced  my  view  to  be  worthy  of  consideration,  but  did  not  express 
any  decisive  opinion  of  his  own. 

7 Had  the  bronze  been  found  at  Paramythia,  as  Stephani  contended,  one  would  expect  to  find  on  it  the 
specially  beautiful  patina  of  those  bronzes.  Its  patina  is  not  only  not  antique,  it  is  merely  counterfeit  modern. 

8 Cf.  the  forged  Amazon  bronze  in  Verona.  See  p.  137,  note  I. 


THE  STROGANOFF  BRONZE 


407 


up  from  inside  with  molten  lead,  according  to  a favourite  method  of  modern  forgers. 
Not  long  ago  there  was  offered  to  the  Berlin  Museum  a forged  Herakles  bronze, 
showing  similar  holes  filled  up  with  lead.  The  Stroganoff  statuette  was  apparently 
broken  and  carelessly  put  together  with  lead,  but  the  parts— including  the  left  arm — 
are  of  the  same  date,  and  evidently  belong  together.  The  mantle  was  never  better 
finished  than  it  is  now  ; on  the  arm  there  is  only  a small  fissure  patched  up  with 
lead,  but  no  traces  of  solder  to  show  that  the  mantle  once  covered  it.  The  original 
intention  probably  was  to  cast  the  mantle  with  the  forearm  separately  and  fasten  them 
on,  but  this  intention  was  never  carried  out,  no  doubt  because  the  crowded  thin  folds 
of  the  mantle  were  difficult  to  render.  In  the  sixteenth-century  bronze  copy  in  the 
Louvre  of  the  Belvedere  statue  (by  Durant),  the  left  arm  with  the  whole  front  part  of  the 
drapery  is  separately  cast.1  The  so-called  ‘ aegis  ’ in  the  left  hand  of  the  statuette  is 
cast  to  imitate  a breakage,  and  the  patina  is  false.  The  piece  is  slightly  scolloped  out 
at  the  edge,  but  otherwise  there  are  no  traces  of  chisel  work.  The  head,  also  unchiselled, 
is  poor  and  common,  and  like  the  body  bears  every  trace  of  being  only  a slavish  copy 
by  a mediocre  workman.  What  he  meant  by  the  fragment  in  the  left  hand  we  do  not 
know,  and  need  hardly  inquire  ; it  is  evident  that  by  this  divergence  from  the  original 
the  forger,  who  knew  quite  well  the  hand  of  the  Apollo  to  be  restored,  intended  to 
make  the  statuette  more  interesting.  And  in  this  he  has  doubtless  succeeded,  since 
for  over  thirty  years  scholars  have  been  mystified  by  his  bronze. 

Another  forged  copy,  or  rather  variant,  of  the  Vatican  statue  is  to  be  seen  at 
Saragossa.2  I know  it  only  from  illustrations.  The  left  arm  is  raised  with  a dramatic 
gesture  ; the  drapery  on  the  arm  is  omitted,  but  hangs  down  over  the  body  as  in  the 
Stroganoff  figure.  The  chlamys  (here  with  a fringed  edge)  is  drawn  across  so  as  to 
cover  the  pubes — a trait  which  alone  suffices  to  betray  the  modern  origin.  The  fingers 
are  cast  to  imitate  breakages. 

Having  now  disposed  of  the  Stroganoff  figure,  we  need  have  no  doubt  whatever 
that  the  Belvedere  Apollo  with  the  quiver  on  his  back  held  the  bow  in  his  left  hand, 
possibly  also  the  end  of  an  arrow  grasped  in  one  finger.  But  neither  was  his  right 
hand  empty  : it  bore  an  attribute,  a portion  of  which  is  still  to  be  seen  at  the  upper 
end  of  the  antique  part  of  the  tree-stem,  although  oddly  enough  this  has  not  been 
noticed.3 4  The  right  arm  is  broken,  once  in  the  upper  arm  and  once  at  the  elbow. 
The  upper  arm  is  antique,  the  forearm,  as  marble  and  workmanship  show,  is  restored.1 
To  the  same  restorer  is  to  be  traced  the  piece  which  unites  the  tree-stem  with  the  hand 
(the  fingers  of  which  are  restored  in  plaster).  A large  rectangular  puntello  on  the 
thigh  shows  that  the  lower  part  of  the  right  arm  was  originally  somewhat  more  raised 
and  more  to  the  front.  The  connexion  between  the  tree-trunk  and  the  hand  was 
effected  by  the  attribute  held  in  the  hand  ; the  end  of  this  attribute  may  be  seen  worked 
in  relief  on  the  tree-trunk  ; it  consists  of  a few  laurel-leaves  5 pointing  downwards,  and 
four  ends  of  the  peculiar  knotted  woollen  fillets  which  formed  the  usual  adornment  of 

1 Here,  as  in  the  Stroganoff  bronze,  the  support  under  the  left  foot  is  cast  with  the  figure. 

2 Gascon  de  Gotor,  Zaragoza  (1891),  pi.  to  p.  56. 

3 Except  by  K.  Botticher  ( Erklar . Verzeichniss  der  Abgiisse  in  Berlin , 1872,  p.  323)  who  was,  however, 
mistaken  in  supposing  the  right  hand  genuine.  My  own  observations  were  made  on  the  original,  and  are  quite 
independent  of  his.  The  tree-trunk,  although  broken,  was  in  one  piece  with  the  round  plinth  and  the  right  foot. 
It  has  been  fastened  on  again,  not  quite  accurately.  Freerichs  ( Apoll . v.  Belvedere , Paderborn  1894)  is  mistaken  in 
believing  that  the  plinth,  the  tree-stem,  and  the  feet  do  not  belong  to  the  statue. 

4 Proved  by  Petersen,  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  1890,  51.  In  the  small  catalogue  of  the  Vatican,  ed.  1875,  p.  236,  the 
lower  arm  is  already  noted  as  a restoration. 

5 In  the  Apollo  statue,  Berlin,  No.  51,  a laurel-branch  likewise  formed  the  connexion  between  hand  and 
tree-trunk. 


408 


THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 


Apollo’s  Omphalos  and  Tripod.1  Doubtless,  then,  the  right  hand  bore  a laurel-branch 
with  stemmata,  the  well-known  Apolline  symbol  which  the  archaic  Apollo  on  early 
coins  of  Kaulonia  raises  in  his  hand,  and  which,  together  with  the  bow  in  the  left  hand, 
continued  to  be  frequently  given  to  the  god  during  the  severe  period,  and  right 
down  into  late  antiquity.2  The  knotted  fillets  also  occur  frequently  on  coins.  Apollo 
holds  them  in  his  hand,  sometimes  with  the  laurel-branch,  sometimes  without.3  The 
meaning  of  this  attribute  is  always  the  same  ; it  symbolizes  the  cleansing,  healing,  and 
expiating  function  of  the  god,  just  as  the  bow  designates  him  as  ‘ Far-darter.’  The 
two  attributes  in  conjunction  characterize  him  as  the  god  who  wards  off  darkness  and 
evil  disease.  So  Herakles,  in  the  Orphic  hymn,4  scares  away5  with  his  branch 
and  his  arrows  evil  spirits — the  /ca/ca?  aTa?  and  the  /cf/pas  The  motion 

of  the  god  indicates  his  passage  through  his  realm,  and  the  turn  of  his  head 
signifies  that  he  is  ever  on  the  alert,  ready  to  bring  protection  and  succour 
wherever  the  oppressed  call  him.  Thus  on  Persian  coins  the  Great  King  appears 
armed  with  the  arrow  and  striding  swiftly  like  a divinity  bringing  help  to  his 
subjects. 

In  a previous  treatise6  I tried  to  show  that  no  definite  ‘ situation’  is  expressed  in 
the  statue  (a  view  now  further  substantiated  by  the  discovery  of  the  laurel-twig),  and 
that  an  older,  possibly  a fifth-century,  type  underlies  this  conception.  Since  then 
Winter  has  published  his  theory — in  my  eyes  absolutely  convincing — that  the 
statue  is  a copy  of  a work  by  Leochares.7  It  is  in  the  Ganymede  of  this  artist 
that  the  unusual  gliding  gait  of  the  Apollo,  the  rhythm  in  the  movement  of 
the  limbs,  as  well  as  the  bodily  forms,  have  their  nearest  analogy  ; the  resem- 
blance between  the  two  is  so  strong  and  so  personal  that  we  are  justified  in 
referring  them  to  the  same  artist.8  Further,  there  is  also  a type  of  Alexander,  which 
has  been  recently  shown  to  be  probably  derived  from  Leochares,9  and  which 
manifests  a decided  likeness  to  the  Apollo  Belvedere  in  the  form  of  the  neck, 
the  curls  behind  the  ear,  and  above  all,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  shape  of  the 
eye  and  the  pressure  of  the  eyeball  against  the  outer  corner. 

In  any  case  I agree  with  Winter  in  separating  the  Apollo  from  Hellenistic  work 
and  in  placing  it  in  the  Attic  school  of  the  fourth  century.  This  is  a conclusion  which 
cannot  be  disputed.  Even  details  like  the  hair  tied  in  a bow,10  the  feet  and  the  sandals, 

1 Cf.  tripod  on  coins  of  Kroton.  The  kerykeion  is  also  found  with  these  knotted  fillets.  See  Wiener 
Vorlegeb.  1890 — 91,  Taf.  10,  also  the  holy  tunny-fish  from  Kyzikos,  Brit.  Mus.  Cat.  of  Coins,  Mysia,  PI.  3,  20, 
and  other  sacrificial  animals  and  utensils. 

2 Cf.  in  particular  the  fine  coin  of  Side,  of  severe  style,  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  10,  6 ; Oberbeck,  Apollo,  Coin- 
plate 3,  52  ; coins  of  Metapontum  (Overbeck,  loc.  cit.  3,  9)  and  of  Athens  [ibid.  3,  29,  33),  Samml.  Sabouroff, 
Text  to  Taf.  8 — 11,  p.  3,  and  the  Berlin  statue,  51. 

9 See  Overbeck,  Apollo,  Coin-plate  3,  48  (Magnesia),  49  (Aegae),  and  51  (Myrina).  Eros  on  a gem  (motive 
similar  to  the  statue  of  Parion)  carries  in  his  right  hand  a twig  with  knotted  fillets.  (Cades,  Amove,  55.  Cf. 
Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  1359.) 

4 Orph.  Hymn , 12,  5.  Cf.  Rohde,  Psyche,  i.  219,  note. 

5 An  interesting  R.F.  vase  from  Greece  (in  Berlin,  recently  acquired)  shows  Herakles  seizing  a ker,  repre- 
sented as  a small  winged  daemon,  by  the  throat  and  threatening  it  with  his  club. 

6 Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  p.  251. 

7 Jalwb.  d.  Arch.  Inst.  1892,  p.  164.  Overbeck’s  answer  in  Sachs.  Berichte,  1892,  p.  34,  is  not  of  much 
consequence,  seeing  that  O.  considers  the  Apollo  to  be  standing  much  in  the  same  way  (‘nicht  viel  anders’)  as 
the  Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos. 

8 The  head  of  the  Ganymede  (quoted  as  an  additional  proof  by  Winter,  p.  176)  must  be  left  out  of  the 
argument,  as  its  genuineness  is  by  no  means  certain. 

9 Ivopp,  Bildniss  Alexanders  des  Grossen,  p.  18,  Taf.  ii.  Head  of  Munich  statue. 

10  For  undoubted  examples  on  originals  of  the  fourth  century,  see  Samml.  Sab.  Text  to  Taf.  22  ; Ath.  Mitth. 
1885,  Taf.  8 and  9.  This  fashion  of  hair  will  be  seen  from  those  instances  to  be  peculiarly  characteristic  of  the 
Praxitelean  epoch.  Also  on  a head  from  Aegion  in  the  Nat.  Mus.,  Athens  (Kabbadias,  No.  192)1  011  an  Attic 


THE  STEINHAUSER  HEAD 


409 


resembling  those  of  the  Olympian  Hermes,1  and  the  conformation  of  the  body,2  all 
point  to  the  later  period  of  Skopas  and  Praxiteles  or  to  the  earlier  period  of  their  suc- 
cessors (Leochares  was  a somewhat  younger  contemporary  of  those  artists,  seeing  that 
he  worked  with  Lysippos  on  the  ‘ Lion-hunt  ’ of  Alexander).  The  strong  resemblance 
between  this  Apollo  and  the  Diana  of  Versailles  (p.  328),  which  once  led  scholars  to  the 
false  assumption  that  the  two  statues  formed  a pair,3  is  now  explained  by  the  fact 
that  they  belong  to  the  same  period — circa  330  B.C. — and  to  the  same  artistic  school. 
We  have  already  shown  that  the  ‘ Diane  ’ has  many  features  in  common  with  the  later 
Praxitelean  statues  of  Artemis.  The  rhythm  of  the  figure  and  the  gliding  gait  are 
so  closely  related  to  the  Apollo  that  she  too  may  not  impossibly  be  a creation  of 
Leochares. 

The  Belvedere  statue  is  a careful  and  evidently  a faithful  Roman  copy  ; the 
presence  of  the  tree-stump,  which  jars  on  the  eye,  makes  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
the  original  was  of  bronze.4  The  copyist  seems  to  have  done  his  best  to  reproduce 
the  details  of  this  original,  and  after  the  experience  we  have  gained  of  ancient 
copying  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  trustworthiness.  A second  replica  exists 
in  the  so-called  ‘Steinhauser’  head,5  one  of  those  hasty  and  inexact  marble  copies 
from  bronze  which  only  reproduce  the  essential  features.  The  copyist  has  in  this 
case  treated  the  hair  very  cavalierly,  merely  inadequately  indicating  it  on  the  top 
of  the  head  and  leaving  it  as  a solid  mass  behind.6  So  too  he  has  omitted  all  the 
finer  modelling  of  the  features,  and  confined  his  chisel  to  the  principal  forms  ; and 
yet,  like  many  copyists  of  the  good,  i.e.  the  Augustan,  period,  he  has  succeeded  in 
reproducing  the  expression  of  the  face  and  the  characteristic  light  and  vigour  in  the 
eye,  so  that,  before  the  technical  methods  of  antique  copying  were  as  well  understood 
as  they  are  at  present,  this  head  was  supposed,  especially  from  the  characteristic 
although  sketchy 7 treatment  of  the  eye,  to  represent  an  older  variant  of  the  Belvedere 
Apollo  type,  while  in  reality  it  is  simply  another  copy  of  the  same  original,  executed 
in  a different  manner.8  We  must  do  our  best  to  imagine  the  original  with  the  help 
of  both  replicas.  For  the  eyes  we  should  rely  on  the  Steinhauser  head,  at  the 
same  time  neglecting  its  lifeless  mouth,  empty  forms,  and  clumsy  hair  in  favour 
of  the  more  exact  rendering  to  be  found  in  the  Belvedere  statue. 

So  far  we  possess  no  good  second  copy  of  the  torso,  though  I hold  it  not 
impossible  that  some  day  a replica  will  turn  up  without  the  chlamys.  I cannot 
help  suspecting  that  this  drapery  is  an  addition  made  by  the  copyist,  like  the  chlamys 


grave-relief,  seated  female  figure  (Coll.  Jacobsen,  Ny  Carlsberg  Glypt.  1060  a),  and  on  two  of  the  Muses  on  the 
Chigi  reliefs,  Petersen  (Rom.  Mitth.  1893,  Taf.  2,  3 ; p.  73), 

1 Cf.  Winter,  loc.  cit.  The  formation  of  the  toes  should  also  be  noticed.  The  sandals  do  not,  as  I formerly 
quite  erroneously  supposed  (Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  p.  251),  indicate  Hellenistic  origin. 

2 I also  associated  the  bodily  forms  quite  incorrectly  (loc.  cit. ) with  the  Pergamene  Apollo.  On  a closer 

comparison  one  recognizes  the  strong  difference  between  them  ; the  Pergamene  work  bears  traces  everywhere  of  a 
common  external  naturalism.  3 A mistake  in  which  I also  shared  (loc.  cit.) 

4 The  whole  polish  of  the  flesh,  however,  seems  modern  ; on  the  right  side  the  original  surface  is  better 
preserved  ; hair  and  drapery  are  not  polished. 

5 For  literature  see  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsahg.  1525. 

6 This  kind  of  careless  copying  must  not  be  confounded  with  that  broad  touch  of  genius  which  often  ignores 
details,  and  which  may  be  observed  on  many  original  works.  The  difference  in  the  hair,  however,  had  formerly 
made  me  suppose,  though  quite  incorrectly  (Arch.  Zeiig.  1882),  that  the  Steinhauser  head  must  be  the  copy  of  a 
different  original. 

7 The  left  tear-gland,  for  instance,  has  come  out  abnormally  large  ; at  the  same  time,  the  part  below  the  left 
eye  is  very  good. 

8 The  difference  in  scale,  so  much  emphasized  by  Kekule  (Arch.  Ztg.  1878,  p.  9),  is  slight.  The  ‘ Steinhauser  ’ 
copyist  worked  hastily,  and  may  have  cut  too  deep  into  the  marble,  thus  making  a reduction  of  all  the  measure- 
ments necessary.  Winter  still  overestimates  the  Steinhauser  head. 

3 G 


4io 


THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 


of  the  Meleager,  which  it  resembles  in  style  and  treatment : it  neither  harmonizes 
with  the  quiver  on  the  back,  nor  do  its  petty  folds  and  its  artificial  stillness  suit  the 
splendid  swing  of  the  whole  conception.  In  turning  from  the  question  of  copies 
back  to  the  original,  we  next  have  to  consider  whether  this  Apollo  descending  like 
the  storm  and  vigorously  turning  his  head  to  the  side  was  a new  creation  now  for 
the  first  time  finding  expression  in  art. 

It  was,  as  I have  already  shown,1  from  a pictorial  composition  that  Leochares 
derived  the  idea  which  he  worked  out  so  boldly  and  skilfully  in  his  Ganymede.  True, 
he  had  to  give  up  the  beautiful  and  natural  motive  in  which  the  boy’s  arms  are 
clasped  round  the  eagle’s  neck,  and,  though  the  motive  he  chose  was  less  appropriate, 
it  yet  afforded  a fine  rhythmic  motion,  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  Apollo, 
and  still  more  similar  to  the  dancing  Satyr,  which  is  possibly  by  Leochares,  and 
certainly  of  his  school.2 

Now  coin-types,  and  notably  those  of  Amphipolis,3 4  make  it  evident  that, 
like  his  Ganymede,  the  Apollo  of  Leochares  also  was  inspired  by  an  older  model. 
The  beautiful  silver  coinage  of  Amphipolis  with  the  Apollo  head  facing  is  com- 
prised within  the  period  between  the  foundation  of  the  city  in  B.C.  437  and  its 
capture  by  Philip  in  B.C.  358.  Among  these  coins  the  latest  and  softest  in  style 
(they  are  further  characterized  by  the  inscription  ' Aix^nroXiTwv  and  the  symbol 
of  a Boeotian  shield)  have  been  assigned,  with  much  probability,  to  the  period  of  the 
Theban  hegemony  (371 — 362). 4 On  the  other  hand,  the  coins  of  severe  style  bearing 
the  shortened  inscription  ’A /Mfn  should  be  dated  during  the  first  years  of  the  city’s 
existence.5 * 7 8  Here  the  head  of  Apollo  is  in  a tranquil  attitude,  and  there  is  no  indication 
of  any  chlamys.  A third  series  of  coins,  still  more  beautiful  and  varied  than  the 
other  two,  are  inscribed  ' AptyiiroXiTean'?  and  probably  belong  to  the  period  between 
370  and  430 — 420  (Plate  VI.  24,  25).  Here  the  Apollo  head,  also  facing,  is  turned 
decidedly  to  the  left,  and  on  some  examples  the  chlamys  is  indicated.  Practically  the 
same  type,  with  the  head  turned  to  the  side,  the  floating  curls,  and  the  chlamys, 
appears  on  some  magnificent  coins  of  Klazomenai  (Plate  VI.  27,  28,  29) 7 of  the 
same  date,  and  again  on  coins  of  Miletos  (Plate  VI.  26).®  This  was  the  type  which 
influenced  the  heads  of  Helios  on  the  earliest  coins  of  Rhodes,  struck,  as  we  must 
suppose,  soon  after  the  founding  of  the  colony  in  480  B.C.9 

The  head  of  Apollo  on  the  coins  seems  based  upon  a statuary  type  representing 
the  god  in  a vigorous,  striding  attitude,  and  with  head  turned  to  the  left — a figure 
corresponding  in  all  essentials  to  the  statue  of  Leochares.  Now  there  was  a proto- 
type for  this  statue,  actually  among  the  works  of  the  later  Pheidian  epoch ; the  Apollo 
of  the  coins  belongs  to  that  series  of  heads,  also  represented  facing  and  with  streaming 

1 Samm.  Sabouroff,  Text  to  Taf.  147,  p.  5. 

2 I have  dwelt  on  the  connexion  with  the  Ganymede,  loc.  cit.  For  replicas  (a  statue  in  Naples  and  two 

statuettes  from  Thessaly  and  Pompeii  respectively),  see  Satyr  von  Pergamon,  Berliner  Winckelmannsprogram, 
1880,.  p.  14,  Taf.  3,  2.  a Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  p.  252. 

4 De  Witte,  Rev.  Numism.  1864,  P-  100.  Von  Sallet  (Beschr.  d.  Ant.  Miinzen  in  Berlin,  ii.  34)  disputes 
this  chronology,  and  dates  the  coins  among  the  earliest.  But  the  recent  style  speaks  for  De  Witte’s  view. 

5 In  this  case  also  the  style  is  quite  decisive.  The  shortened  inscription  corresponds  to  the  older  custom. 
Von  Sallet  [loc.  cit.  p.  36)  recognizes  the  severity  of  the  style,  without  however  drawing  the  right  conclusion. 
Specially  severe  are  the  small  coins  with  the  head  in  profile  and  the  legend  A/j.<pi.  Nor  can  I agree  with  Head’s 
supposition  (Hist.  Num.  p.  190),  that  the  coinage  only  began  after  the  town  was  taken  by  Brasidas  : like  the 
similar  colony  of  Thurii,  the  city  must  have  had  the  right  of  striking  its  own  coinage  from  the  first. 

0 Good  reproductions  in  Percy  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  7,11;  Head,  Guide,  PI.  21,  7>  8 ; Berliner  Cat.  ii. 
Taf.  3,  22 — 25.  A beautiful  example,  newly  acquired,  in  London,  Num.  Chron.  1892,  PL  2,  6. 

7 Head,  Guide,  PI.  19,  24 — 26  ; Hist.  Num.  p.  491. 

8 Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Ionia,  PI.  21,  8.  Chlamys  indicated. 


Head,  Guide,  PI.  20,  37,  38. 


FIFTH-CENTURY  PROTOTYPE 


41 1 

hair,  in  which  we  have  already  recognized  dependence  upon  the  style  of  Pheidias 
and  his  contemporaries  {supra,  p.  105  sqq .)  Since  Amphipolis  was  founded  under  the 
auspices  of  Perikles,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  Athenian  artists  of  the  school  of 
Pheidias  cutting  Athenian  types  for  her  coinage. 

But  we  also  possess  marble  copies  of  a work,  or  at  any  rate  of  the  head  of  a work, 
which  was  a prototype  of  Lcochares’s  conception.  Two  copies  of  this  earlier  work 
exist,  one  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  177) 1 and  one  in  Naples,  where  it  is  wrongly 
placed  on  the  torso  of  a wounded  hero  and  misnamed  a gladiatore'}  The  work  is 


Fig.  177. — Head  of  Apollo  (Brit.  Mus.) 


in  reality  a youthful  Apollo,  well  characterized  by  the  full  hair  and  the  forehead 
broadening  at  the  base.  The  analogy  to  the  Belvedere  statue  consists  not  only  in 
these  general  features  but  specially  in  the  animated  turn  of  the  head  to  the  left  and 
the  bright  steady  gaze  of  the  eyes,  which  almost  seem  to  emit  rays  of  light.  But 
a long  interval  of  time  separates  the  two  conceptions.  The  London  and  Naples 
heads  have  the  firm  simple  planes,  the  large  and  sharply  defined  forms  of  the  older 
style  ; the  Belvedere  head  shows  richer  modelling  and  smoother  transitions.  In  the 

1 I noticed  the  resemblance  of  this  head  to  the  Belvedere  Apollo  on  my  first  visit  to  London  in  1881  ; 
Fig.  1 77  is  from  a photograph  taken  at  that  time.  Kopp  has  since  published  (Bi/dniss  Alexanders  des  Grossen, 
p.  24)  two  other  views  of  the  head. 

2 Museo  Borbon.  v.  7 ; Clarac,  865,  2203  ; Photograph  Sommer,  1582.  A portion  of  the  neck  is  also 
preserved. 


412 


THE  APOLLO  OF  THE  BELVEDERE 


earlier  head  the  mouth  seems  to  be  put  on  from  outside,  in  the  later  it  is  well  knit 
with  the  rest  of  the  face,  and  its  edges  melt  impalpably  into  the  surrounding  surfaces. 
Again,  the  eyes  of  the  earlier  head  show  no  trace  of  the  careful  modelling  of  the 
region  around  the  eye,  so  telling  as  a vehicle  of  expression ; there  is  no  indication 
of  the  lower  edge  of  the  eye-socket,  but  the  cheek  continues  unbroken  up  to  the 
groove  below  the  eyeball ; the  lower  lid  is  broad  and  hard,  and  the  part  between 
the  upper  lid  and  the  upper  edge  of  the  eye-socket  is  modelled  according  to  old 
convention.  Instead  of  swelling  out  gradually  towards  the  temple,  it  is  represented 
as  a compact  roll  of  flesh  separated  by  a slight  depression  from  the  eyebrow,  which 
continues  in  a hard  sharp  ridge  as  far  as  the  temple.  All  these  are  marks  which 
distinguish  Pheidian  from  Praxitelean  work. 

But  the  type  of  this  British  Museum  Apollo  is  not  unfamiliar  to  us,  for  it  is 
closely  connected  with  a series  of  heads  which  we  have  previously  discussed  (p.  99 
sqq.)  ; the  whole  expression  of  the  head  and  its  turn,  the  form  of  the  open  mouth 
with  the  powerful  curve  of  the  lips,  recall  the  Dioscuri  of  Monte  Cavallo  and  the 
works  related  to  them.  Above  all,  the  analogy  which  the  hair  presents  in  its  forms 
and  its  peculiar  asymmetria  to  the  heads  ascribed  to  the  Elder  Praxiteles  {supra, 
Figs.  42,  I ; 43,  44)  seems  to  me  so  personal  and  individual  as  to  warrant  us  in 
attributing  the  London  head  to  the  same  artist. 

Doubtless  the  whole  movement  of  the  statue  had  nothing  of  the  gliding 
grace  of  the  Belvedere  figure.  We  may  imagine  a motive  more  in  the  manner  of 
the  Monte  Cavallo  Dioscuri,  though  not  so  violent.  The  right  knee  was  probably 
more  bent,  and  a real  stride  represented.  An  Athena  of  the  Pheidian  school,  copied 
in  a statuette  of  Epidauros,1  very  well  shows  how  artists  of  that  time  conceived  of  a 
divinity  hastening  to  give  succour  and  aid.  The  head  is  turned  with  an  animated 
gesture,  the  knee  of  the  striding  leg  is  bent  and  well  advanced  ; it  was  the  singular 
merit  of  Leochares  to  impart  to  the  attitude  grace,  lightness,  and  elasticity. 

In  this  Apollo  of  the  Pheidian  circle — presumably  by  the  Elder  Praxiteles — 
the  god  is  represented  as  Healer  and  Saviour,  striding  like  the  Athena  Hygieia  of 
Epidauros,2  or  like  that  earlier  Apollo  of  Kaulonia  who  waves  the  laurel-twig  in  token 
of  expiation.  On  the  Akropolis  of  Athens  stood  a bronze  statue  of  Apollo,  called 
‘ Parnopios  ’ because  the  god  had  saved  the  land  from  a plague  of  grasshoppers.  The 
figure  was  ‘said  to  be’  by  Pheidias  (to  ayaX/ra  Xeyovcnv  <&eihlav  TTOLijcrcu , Paus.  i.  24,  8). 
That  it  was  certainly  not  signed  we  may  conclude  from  Lucian’s  remarks  on  the 
Athena  Lemnia.3  Like  other  works  attributed  by  Pausanias  to  the  master,  it  may 
have  been  by  one  of  his  pupils  or  colleagues  ; for  instance,  like  the  Promachos,  which 
Pausanias  also  attributed  to  Pheidias,  it  may  possibly  have  been  a work  of  the  elder 
Praxiteles,  and  be  identical  with  the  statue  of  ‘ Apollo  the  Saviour  ’ by  that  master. 
Some  hundred  years  later,  when  Leochares  had  a similar  commission  to  execute,  he 
adopted  the  Pheidian  type  ; an  Apollo  by  him  at  Athens  formed,  we  know,  a pendant 
(of  like  significance,  probably)  to  the  Alexikakos , the  warder  of  evil,  by  Kalamis,  in 
front  of  the  temple  of  the  Patroos. 

1 ’E <pw  apx-  1886,  Taf.  12  (left  hand);  At  A.  Mitth.  1886,  p.  309  (Petersen).  Not  only  the  helmet 
but  the  hair  and  type  of  face  are  Pheidian. 

2 Petersen’s  explanation  {/oc.  cit.)  seems  far-fetched.  The  goddess  is  simply  hastening  to  help  in  need.  For 
the  torch  on  the  basis  of  the  relief,  see  Friederichs-Wolters,  1176. 

3 Cf.  supra,  pp.  10,  32,  62.  The  Ae-yovcrtv  of  Pausanias  (on  the  strength  of  which  Michaelis  in  Aik. 
Mitth.  ii.  p.  1,  note  2,  reckons  the  Parnopios  as  doubtful)  does  not  in  itself  necessarily  imply  anything  at  all, 
as  Gurlitt  (Pausanias,  p.  193)  has  shown,  for  even  when  he  is  quoting  an  inscription  Pausanias  not  unfrequently 
introduces  it  by  rpaaiv. — e.g.  in  the  case  of  the  Aphrodite  by  Kalamis,  i.  23,  2. 


APPENDIX 

THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


APPENDIX 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 

IN  order  thoroughly  to  appreciate  the  sculptured  de- 
corations of  the  temples  of  the  Akropolis,  or — to  go 
no  further — of  the  east  frieze  of  the  Parthenon, 
which,  in  a preceding  inquiry  (see  page  47),  we  have 
confidently  ascribed  to  Pheidias,  it  is  necessary  to  attain  to 
a clear  conception  of  the  significance  of  the  temples  and  of 
their  mutual  relations.  The  solution  of  this  problem  has 
been  the  object  of  specially  active  endeavour  in  the  last  ten 
years,  a period  which  has  given  us  the  discovery  by  Dorpfeld 
of  the  oldest  of  those  temples.  There  still  remains,  how- 
ever, a sufficient  number  of  obscure  and  puzzling  points,  to 
the  elucidation  of  which  I shall  endeavour  to  contribute  in 
the  sequel. 

I.  The  ‘ Old  Temple'  of  Athena. 

Even  since  the  finding  of  Dorpfeld’s  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ the 
predominant  view  is  that  the  Erechtheion  occupies  the  site 
of  a temple  of  the  oldest  times.  (See  annexed  plan  of 
temples,  Fig.  178.)  Dorpfeld  himself  inferred  at  first  from 
his  discovery  merely  that  this  supposed  ‘ older  Erechtheion  ’ was  somewhat  smaller  than  the  one 
actually  in  existence,  since  the  Porch  of  the  Caryatids  projected  over  part  of  the  substructions  of  the 
newly  discovered  temple.1  Later,  he  so  far  modified  these  views  as  simply  to  suppose  that  a small 
Temple  of  Erechtheus  had  once  stood  on  the  site  of  the  Erechtheion,  immediately  to  the  north 
of  the  old  Athena  Temple.2  Wachsmuth  conjectures  that  the  Erechtheion  and  its  assumed  older 
predecessor  occupied  exactly  the  site  of  the  Megaron  in  the  old  Royal  Palace  on  the  Citadel.3 
Michaelis  supposes  an  old  double  shrine  on  the  site  of  the  Erechtheion.1 

These  suppositions  are  all  without  external  support  from  facts,  since  no  trace  exists  of 
an  older  building  on  the  site  of  the  Erechtheion,  with  the  exception  of  the  piece  of  the  south 
side  where  the  great  ‘Old  Temple’  lies  under  the  Erechtheion,  and  of  a few  blocks  on  the 
west  side  which  belonged  to  a smaller,  older,  though  not  pre-Persian  building  or  enclosure. 
Although  it  is  true  that  other  walls  of  an  older  date  might  have  disappeared,  yet  Wachsmuth’s 
conjecture  is  highly  improbable,  on  account  of  the  great  unevenness  of  the  ground  on 
which  the  Erectheion  stands.  The  ancient  Megaron  certainly  did  not  lie  in  this  place.  The 
altar  of  Zeus  Herkeios  in  the  Pandroseion  is  no  doubt,  as  Wachsmuth  supposes,  the  same 
that  in  the  old  kingly  times  stood  in  the  palace  courtyard,  but  the  royal  abode  did  not  necessarily 
stand  so  near  the  altar  as  does  the  present  Erechtheion  : it  should  be  placed  on  the  more  level  plat- 
form of  rock  farther  to  the  east.  In  this  place  excavations  have,  in  fact,  brought  to  light  remains  of 
cyclopean  walls  so  stately  as  fully  to  justify  us  in  supposing  that  we  have  here  the  actual  palace.  Nor 
does  our  literary  evidence  lend  support  to  the  predominant  supposition  that  in  old  times  there 

1 Ath.  Mittli.  xi  350.  2 Ibid.  xii.  1 99. 

3 Berichte  der  Sdchsisch.  Gcsellsch.  1887,  p.  399  sqq. 

4 Altattische  Kunst  (Speech,  1893),  p.  16.  E.  Szanto  (in  the  Arch.  ep.  Mitth.  ails  Oesterr.  xiv.  1 16),  starting 
from  this  unproved  assumption  of  an  older  Erechtheion  beside  Dorpfeld’s  temple,  even  attempts  to  separate  the 
Athenas  of  the  two  temples  : the  one,  he  says,  is  Polias,  the  City-Goddess,  the  other  is  the  goddess  toov  'Mr\vS>v 
fjLtSiovaa,  She  that  cares  for  the  City.  In  the  year  480  Themistokles  persuaded  the  Athenians  to  believe  that  the 
‘ City-Goddess  ’ had  fled,  and  that  therefore  they  must  flee,  but  that  ‘ She  who  cares  for  the  City  ’ had  remained 
in  the  other  temple  (!) 


416 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


stood  beside  the  great  Athena  temple  a second  temple,  corresponding  in  the  main  to  the  later 
Erechtheion,  although  of  smaller  size.  The  two  well-known  passages  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 

(which,  however,  can  almost  certainly  not  be  dated  earlier  than  the  sixth  century1)  attest  the 

existence  of  only  one  shrine  upon  the  Citadel ; this  is  held  by  Erechtheus  and  Athena  in  common. 
For,  according  to  II.  ii.  549^^.,  the  cult  of  Erechtheus  takes  place  in  the  temple  of  Athena,2  where  the 
goddess  has  assigned  him  a place.  When,  in  Od.  vii.  81,  Athena  betakes  herself  to  the  house  of 

Erechtheus  as  to  her  home,  this  can  only  be  that  same  shrine,  which  accordingly  belonged  to 

Erechtheus  as  much  as  to  Athena,  and  could  be  called  after  either  of  the  two.  By  the  ‘house  of 
Erechtheus’  is  meant  no  royal  palace, but  a place  for  worship  : this  is  shown  by  that  very  passage  of 
the  Iliad,  in  which  Erechtheus  has  his  place  of  abode  assigned  to  him  not  as  the  king  but  as  a person 
who  is  an  object  of  worship.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  both  passages  the  sixth-century  poet  is 
alluding  to  a double  shrine  of  Erechtheus  and  Athena  on  the  Citadel,  which  shrine  was  well  known  to 
his  listeners.3 

Now  this  double  shrine  of  Erechtheus  and  Athena,  attested  for  the  sixth  century  by  the 
passages  from  Homer,  can  be  no  other  than  the  great  ‘Old  Temple’  discovered  by  Dorpfeld. 
This  is  no  ‘Temple  of  the  Tyrants,’  as  Petersen4  and  Curtius 5 6 suppose,  beside  which 
it  would  be  necessary  to  imagine  the  real  shrine  standing  on  the  site  of  the  later 
Erechtheion ; only  the  peristyle  is  from  its  construction  evidently  not  earlier  than  the 
‘ Peisistratan  ’ period;  but  the  naos  itself  is  so  distinct  and  so  much  older  in  the  technique  and 
material  of  the  foundations,  that  in  all  probability  it  is  considerably  more  ancient.0  Moreover,  there 
lie  below  it  remains  of  a yet  earlier  building,7  so  that,  even  if  we  concede  the  possibility  that  the  naos 
dates  from  no  further  back  than  the  age  of  Peisistratos,  yet  we  have  to  suppose  a predecessor  to  it  on 
the  same  site.  The  oldest  witnesses,  the  passages  from  Homer,  in  spite  of  their  antiquity,  have  in 
view  at  any  rate  the  stately  naos  Hekatompedos  with  its  double  cella.  The  peristyle,  judging 
by  its  architectural  forms  and  its  decoration,  can  hardly  have  been  built  under  Peisistratos  himself : 
it  was  built  at  the  earliest  under  Hippias,  or  perhaps  not  till  the  period  immediately  following  his 
death.8 

Now  this  temple  is  quite  clearly  a double  temple  : it  had  two  separate  sections,  the 
one  approached  from  the  east,  the  other,  consisting  of  three  chambers,  from  the  west, 
an  arrangement  exactly  suitable  to  the  double  worship  of  goddess  and  hero.9  But,  it  may  be 
objected,  this  western  section  is  merely  a treasury.  This  certainly  has  been  unanimously  asserted 
since  the  discovery  of  the  temple,10  though  I fail  to  see  that  any  one  has  produced  a single  proof. 

The  plan  of  the  temple  is,  as  is  well  known,  quite  unusual,  the  only  analogy  to  it  being  the 
double  temples  in  which  two  deities  are  worshipped  back  to  back,11  and  of  which  the  Erechtheion  is 
a notable  example.  That  there  ever  existed  temples  which,  in  addition  to  the  usual  Opisthodomos 

1 Cf.  especially  von  Wilamowitz,  Homerische  Untersuch.  p.  247  sqq. ; Aristoteles  und  Athen , i.  239. 

2 fxiv  in  II.  ii.  550  can  refer  only  to  Erechtheus  ; cf.  for  a recent  discussion  Rohde,  Psyche , p.  127,  note  I. 

3 Cf.  von  Wilamowitz,  loc.  cit.  p.  248  ; also  Walter  Miller  in  Amer.  Joiirn.  of  Arch.  1893,  pp.  478,  525,  and 

J.  G.  Frazer  in  J.  H.  S.  xiii.  p.  167.  4 Ath.  Mitth.  xii.  64  sqq. 

5 Stadtgeschichte , p.  71  sqq.  So  also  Michaelis,  Altattische  Kunst  (Speech,  1893),  p.  16. 

6 Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  xi.  344,  xii.  209.  The  foundations  of  the  naos,  constructed  of  limestone  from  the  Citadel 
hill,  show  a style  closely  resembling  that  of  the  ‘ Cyclopean  ’ walls  of  the  earliest  period. 

7 Ath.  Mitth.  xii.  61. 

8 The  architectural  forms  especially  resemble  those  of  the  Aeginetan  temple,  which  belongs  to  the  period 
500—480  (cf.  supra,  p.  19,  n.  2),  and  those  of  the  Temple  of  Zeus  at.  Olympia  (cf.  Dorpfeld,  Olympia,  vol.  ii. 
Baudenkm.  p.  20).  The  style  of  the  pediment  sculptures,  and  especially  the  ornamentation  of  the  Sima,  corre- 
spond to  the  vases  of  the  fully  developed  R.F.  style.  It  may  accordingly  be  asked  whether  we  ought  not  to  put 
the  peristyle  later,  after  the  time  of  Hippias,  perhaps  in  the  period  about  507,  in  which  the  Athenians  won  their 
great  successes  over  Thebans,  Chalkidians,  and  Peloponnesians,  and  set  up  the  quadriga  in  honour  of  their  victory 
over  Chalkis.  Cf.  with  regard  to  the  great  development  of  Attic  art  after  the  time  of  the  Peisistratidai,  my 
remarks  in  the  Berl.  Phil.  IVochenschr.  1894,  p.  1278.  Michaelis  ( Altattische  Kunst,  p.  26  ; cf.  p.  16)  dates  the 
peristyle  in  the  time  of  Hippias,  the  naos  in  that  of  Peisistratos.  He  conjectures  that  the  two  great  sculptured 
pediments  of  poros  stone  belonged  to  the  latter  : it  is  possible  that  they  did,  but  in  that  case  they  would  clearly 
point  to  a period  earlier  than  Peisistratos. 

9 Herodot.  viii.  55  shows  that  the  space  lying  to  the  north  below  the  great  temple,  and  containing  the  Olive 
and  the  Salt  Spring,  was  specially  dedicated  to  Erechtheus.  This  does  not  necessarily  clash  with  our  view  that 
Erechtheus  was  worshipped  in  the  great  temple,  as  a house-mate  of  Athena.  If  we  are  correct  in  our  identification 
of  the  double  shrine  alluded  to  in  Homer  with  the  ‘ Old  Temple’  now  extant,  we  are  justified  in  introducing  a 
slight  emendation  in  the  manuscript  text  of  Herodotos  : for  ’Epex^60S  vv4s  rea<^  rather  Ep.  trriKos.  The  fact  that 
the  small  enclosure  below  the  temple  which  contained  the  ‘ tokens  ’ was  sacred  to  Erechtheus  proves  nothing 
against  his  having  been  worshipped  in  the  west  half  of  the  great  temple. 

10  Cf.  as  recent  instances,  Michaelis,  Altattische  Kunst  (Speech,  1893),  p.  16  ; Fowler,  Amenc.  Jottrn.  of 
Arch.  1893,  7 -W- 

11  Cf.  e.g.  Pans.  ii.  25,  1,  Ares  and  Aphrodite,  the  former  looking  west,  the  latter  east ; also  Venus  and 
Roma  at  Rome. 


THE  ‘ OLD  TEMPLE’ 


417 


corresponding  to  the  Pronaos,  had  as  a treasure-chamber  a second  cella  approached  from  the  west, 
is  a modern  supposition,1  supported,  so  far  as  I can  see,  by  no  building  either  now  extant  or  known 
from  literary  evidence.2  The  Parthenon  is  the  one  and  only  temple  on  which  the  conception  was  based  ; 
but,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  it  was  owing  to  special  circumstances  that  the  second  cella  in  this  case, 


OLD  TEMPLE  OF  ATHENA 

[DESTROYED  BY  THE  PERSIANS] 


GROUND  PLAN 
OF  THE  FOUR 
GREAT  TEMPLES 
ON  THE 
AKROPOLIS 

[from  antike  denkmaeler] 


OLD  TEMPLE  OF  ATHENA 
[DESTROYED  BY  THE  PERSIANS] 

FIRST  PARTHENON 


PARTHENON  OF  PERIKLES 
ERECHTHEION 


PARTHENON  OF  PERIKLES 


£ 

O 

£ 

Id 

X 

H 

& 

< 

Ph 

C* 

id 

O 


Fig.  178. — The  fouF'great'tempIes  of  Athenajon  the  Akropolis. 


contrary  to  its  original  destination,  became  a treasury.  At  any  rate,  unless  the  opposite  is  distinctly 
proved,  it  is  impossible  to  assume  of  a temple  cella  that  it  was  used  for  any  but  religious  purposes. 

1 Thus,  Curtius  says  (Stadtgesch.  p.  132,  note):  ‘The  temples,  in  accordance  with  established  usage, 
always  had  treasure-chambers  behind  the  cella  but  he  gives  no  proof  whatever.  The  ‘back  chamber’  of  the 
temple  at  Corinth,  to  which  he  refers,  seems  more  likely  to  be  the  open  porch  of  the  western  cultus-cella  (cf.  the 
following  note).  The  biruydoboixoi  arriKai  of  Polybios  (xii.  11,  2)  are  records  of  state,  which  it  was  the  custom  to 
keep  in  the  usual  open  back  porches,  the  omadoSopot  of  the  temples.  They  have  of  course  no  more  connexion 
with  treasure-chambers  than  have  the  decrees  of  Proxenia  on  the  pillars  of  the  temple  which  Polybios  mentions 
at  the  same  time.  Wilamowitz  (Aristot.  und  Atheri,  i.  306)  suggests  ras  cnuadoypd.<povs  arrtAas- 

2 The  old  temple  at  Corinth  was,  as  Dorpfeld  has  proved,  a double  temple,  with  two  separate  cellas 
facing  east  and  west  ; and  it  just  happens  that  here  the  character  of  the  latter  as  a place  for  worship  is  put 
beyond  doubt  by  the  preservation  of  the  basis  for  the  cultus-image,  as  Dorpfeld  has  shown  (Ath.  Mitth.  xi.  302, 
Taf.  vii.)  The  Temple  of  the  Kabeiroi  near  Thebes  had  a spacious  back  chamber,  not  accessible  from  the  principal 
cella,  but  the  character  of  this  also  as  a place  for  worship  is  made  quite  certain  by  the  sacrificial  trenches  (Ath. 
Mitth.  xiii.  Taf.  2,  p.  91). 


418 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


Accordingly,  the  rooms  in  the  ‘ Old  Temple’  of  the  Akropolis  were  presumably,  like  the  rest, 
simply  places  for  worship. 

But  there  is  the  Hekatompedon  inscription.  It  is  supposed  by  its  discoverer,  Lolling,  and 
equally  by  Dorpfeld,1  to  afford  proof  that  the  western  compartments  of  the  temple  served  only  for  the 
purposes  of  a treasury  ; according  to  Lolling  and  Dorpfeld,  the  large  western  cella  was  called  to 
o’Ur/fxa  rapieiov,  and  the  two  adjacent  rooms  t<<  oNijpara.  But  to  oi'/ojpa  ra/juelov  was  not  in  the 
inscription,  and  is  an  impossible  expression,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out  by  Dittenberger.2  He 
restores  thus : ras  (cucdpovs  [p>/  e'xtiv  o’i Tcipulov,  and  translates  : ‘ They  are  not  to  set  up  any 
store-room.’  Still  more  correct  seems  to  be  Kirchhoff’s  restoration,3  which  has  the  additional 
advantage  of  corresponding  exactly  to  the  number  of  letters  wanting  (9)  : pr)  noieiv  o’i\nr)pa  rapiuov 
ep7r0A.fi,  i.e.  the  priestesses  and  other  women  concerned  in  the  service  of  the  temple  were  not  to 
convert  any  o’Ur^pa  on  the  Citadel — the  temple  in  particular  is  clearly  not  intended— into  a Tapiciov,  a 
private  store-chamber.  The  other  passage  in  the  inscription,  r«  oiKrjpaTa  [to  ev  tco  'ExarjopTrcSa)  dvolyetv 
[rofir]  rapins,  does,  without  doubt,  refer  expressly  to  the  temple,  but  proves  nothing  for  the  assumed 
treasure-chambers.  The  expression  to  oik.  to  £v  ra  'Ek.  designates  all  compartments  of  the  temple 
that  are  of  the  nature  of  rooms  ; and  of  these  there  are  four,  since  the  two  larger  are  clearly  just  as 
much  oiia/poTo  as  the  two  smaller.  Or  if  the  eastern  section,  being  distinguished  by  two  interior  ranges 
of  columns,  is  not  to  be  considered  a room,  there  remain  at  any  rate  three  oNjjpora.  That  the 
term  o’iKrjpa  can  be  applied  to  a chamber  serving  for  worship  is  well  known  ; we  need  only  call  to  mind 
that  Pausanias  speaks  of  the  west  part  of  the  Erechtheion  as  an  o’i <t]pa  ’EpegOemv  Ka\ovpevov.i  The 
oi.KrjpaTa  of  the  Hekatompedon  we  can  only  regard  as  chambers  for  worship.  Even  if  we  limit  the 
expression  rd  oiKfjpara  to  the  two  smaller  rooms  only — and  we  are  in  no  way  forced  to  do  this — yet 
nothing  whatever  can  be  inferred  with  regard  to  their  purpose  as  treasure-chambers.  The  Tapiai  of 
the  inscription  are  by  no  means  merely  officials  of  the  treasury  : they  are  the  supreme  board  for  the 
supervision  of  the  Citadel  in  general  ; they  have  power  there  in  matters  of  police  ; in  particular  the 
priests  and  other  persons  attached  to  the  temples  are  subjected  to  them  ; they  are  responsible  for 
seeing  that  nothing  irregular  occurs.  It  is  therefore  a matter  of  course  that  they  keep  the  keys  to 
the  chambers  of  the  temple,  seeing  that  it  is  doubtless  they,  not  the  I'ptiai  and  f iiKopoi , that  are  answer- 
able  for  the  objects  there  deposited — votive  offerings,  precious  images  of  the  gods,  furniture,  utensils, 
and  the  like.  These  are  the  Tapiai  tov  Ipov  who,  according  to  Herodotos,  in  480 — Kirchhoff  places 
the  inscription  a little  before  that  date,  in  485 — 484 — were  alone  sitting  on  the  Citadel  when  the  assault- 
ing Persians  climbed  the  hill,  and  of  whom  some  fled  into  the  plyapov,  of  which  they  held  the  keys. 
Where  they  kept  the  treasure  we  do  not  know.  The  inscription,  at  any  rate,  contains  no  indication. 
It  was  not  necessarily  in  the  temple  ; the  pre-Persian  Citadel  contained  so  many  smaller  buildings — 
as  is  proved  by  the  numerous  ancient  simae  of  marble  and  terra-cotta — that  there  can  have  been  no 
lack  of  suitable  closed  places  within  the  sacred  precinct.5 

We  have  found,  then,  not  the  smallest  reason  for  departing  from  the  rule  and  looking  upon  the 
chambers  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ as  anything  other  than  places  for  worship.  The  eastern  cella,  which 
is  marked  out  by  its  size  and  its  interior  columns  as  the  most  important,  seems  from  the  inscription 
to  have  been  called  6 vews  in  a special  sense  ; the  front  division  is  designated  to  ■npovijiov,  the  temple 
as  a whole  a-rrav  to  'EKaTopnedov.  The  last  expression  is  certainly  of  a very  ancient  character,  as  may 
be  conjectured  from  the  7 rup>)  tKaTdpnodos  of  the  Iliad  (xxiii.  164).  The  name  refers  to  the  length  of  the 
temple  exclusive  of  the  peristyle,  and  is  manifestly  older  than  this,  coming  down  from  the  days  when 
the  whole  building  was  a hundred  feet  long.  Only  at  a quite  early  period  could  the  erection  of  a 
temple  a hundred  feet  in  length  be  a subject  for  special  pride.6  Even  the  Heraion  at  Olympia 
is  considerably  bigger,  and  the  mighty  temples  of  ancient  Ionia  were  on  a very  different  scale. 

Hekatompedon,  then,  was  the  official  name  for  the  whole  edifice.  The  eastern  half  belonged  in 
a special  sense  to  Athena  ; the  western  half,  approached  from  the  west,  to  Erechtheus.  We  shall  speak 

1 Lolling,  ’A07]va,  1890,  627  ; AeAt iov,  1890,  92  ; Dorpfeld,  Ath.  Mitth.  xv.  420  sqq.  So  also  Fowler,  Am. 
Jotirn.  of  Arch.  p.  9. 

2 Hermes , vol.  xxvi.  (1891)  p.  472.  3 C.  I.  A.  iv.  139. 

* Cf.  also  Paus.  x.  4,  4.  Therefore  I cannot  assent  to  Dittenberger’s  assertion  ( loc . cit.)  that  an  essential 
part  of  a temple  could  not  be  called  ohcqpa.. 

5 It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  existence  of  separate  buildings  to  contain  temple  treasures  is  attested  in 
several  instances  ; so  the  Qi)<ravp6s  with  door  and  roof  in  Eleusis  ('E<prip.  apx-  I§83,  p.  126,  1.  4 ; p.  118,  1.  73  ; 
p.  1 15,  1.  13);  cf.  Rubensohn  (Die  Mysterienheiligthiimer,  p.  65)  and  the  stone  structure  in  Epidauros  {’Ecfirip.  apx- 
1886,  p.  147,  1.  230,  243,  300)  ; cf.  Swoboda  in  Wiener  Studien,  x.  299,  note  78. 

6 There  is  absolutely  no  ground  for  the  assumption  that  the  name  Hekatompedon  in  itself  points  to  a 1 splendid 
innovation,’  a ‘display  of  magnificence,’  belonging  to  the  period  of  the  Tyrants  (Curtius,  Stadtgesch.  p.  72; 
Petersen,  Ath.  Mitth.  xii.  66  seq.)  On  the  contrary,  the  Olympieion  at  Athens  shows  us  excellently  what  was 
meant  by  a temple  built  for  display  in  the  time  of  the  Peisistratids. 


THE  ‘ OLD  TEMPLE  ’ 


419 


farther  on  of  the  subdivisions  of  this  latter  half.  The  popular  conception  pictured  Erechtheus  as 
actually  dwelling  in  the  temple,1  and  his  ritual,  described  in  the  passage  from  Homer,  may  in  old 
times  have  been  more  important  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  even  than  that  of  Athena. 

The  ‘tokens,’  the  Olive  and  the  Salt  Well,  were  quite  close  to  the  temple.  The  difficult 
problem  of  bringing  even  the  Salt  Well  into  the  architecture  of  a temple  must  have  been  far  removed 
from  the  ideas  of  those  old  times.  The  fencing  in  of  the  sacred  spot,  which  moreover  lay  in  the 
most  immediate  and  most  sacred  precinct  of  the  temple,  was  doubtless  quite  sufficient.  We  may 
compare  the  custom  of  fencing  round  spots  struck  by  lightning,  as  sacred  places  of  Zeus  Kataibates.2 
The  Olive  was,  naturally,  left  in  the  open  air  even  after  the  Salt  Well  was  built  over  : similarly,  at 
Olympia,  the  iXala  KaWiarecpcwos  stood  outside  near  the  temple.  The  assumption  that  we  must 
suppose  an  older  temple  on  the  site  of  the  Erechtheion,  if  only  on  account  of  the  ‘tokens’  in  the 
rock,  is  unfounded.  The  Olive  was  certainly  always  outside.  The  ‘tokens’  were  of  course 
immovable,  but  the  temple  was  not.  In  contrast  to  those  cases  in  which  a new  temple  has  been 
erected  on  the  foundations  of  an  old  one,  there  are,  as  is  well  known,  several  instances  of  the  opposite 
proceeding,  in  which  another  spot  near  by,  within  the  sacred  precinct,  was  chosen.  The  shrine  of 
Dionysos  at  the  foot  of  the  Citadel  was  one  instance;  so  was  that  of  Hera  at  Argos  ; and  the  same 
was  done  at  Samothrake  and  elsewhere.  Now  each  point  within  the  Upbv  was  equally  dedicated 
and  appropriated  to  the  deity  ; it  was  therefore  a matter  of  indifference  whether  his  image  and 
temple  were  set  up  on  this  or  on  that  part  of  the  precinct  within  which  he  dwelt.  Only  it  was 
customary  on  the  occasion  of  any  change  affecting  the  possessions  of  a deity,  whether  his  temple,  his 
image,  or  other  votive  offering,  to  avert  the  possible  displeasure  of  the  deity  by  means  of  a kind  of 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  called  dpevTTjpiov.3 

The  old  Hekatompedon,  then,  was  until  480  the  only  temple  of  the  City  Goddess,  and  her 
companion  Erechtheus,  upon  the  Citadel.  In  its  east  cella  stood  the  olive-wood  image  of  the 
goddess  ; this  was  not  necessarily  older  than  the  temple  itself,  since  the  fables  of  later  writers,  who 
represent  it  as  fallen  from  heaven,  as  set  up  by  Kekrops,  or  Erichthonios,  as  made  by  Endoios,  the 
pupil  of  Daidalos,4  have  about  as  much  value  as  the  Christian  legends  ascribing  a host  of  pictures  to 
St.  Luke.  They  prove  only  that  the  image  appeared  to  those  of  later  days  to  be  very  old.  The  date 
of  the  temple  exclusive  of  the  peristyle  is  to  be  placed  in  the  long  interval  between  the  Mykenaian 
and  the  Peisistratan  periods  : in  thus  placing  it  we  are  guided  by  the  style  of  the  foundations.  The 
artistic  forms  of  the  building  are  unfortunately  cpiite  unknown. 


1 1 . The  First  Parthenon. 

The  second  great  temple  of  the  Citadel  is  the  older  Parthenon,  the  substructions  of  which  lie 
under  the  building  of  Perikles.  Dorpfeld  has  lately  shown5  that  this  older  Parthenon  was  not  erected 
till  after  the  burning  of  the  Citadel  in  480.  The  most  natural  supposition  is  that  it  was  to  replace  the 
‘Old  Temple’  burnt  by  the  Persians.  Unfortunately  we  cannot  now  know  with  certainty  the 
ground-plan  of  the  building,  as  it  has  been  covered  by  the  later  Parthenon.  But  Dorpfeld  supposes, 
with  great  probability,  that  it  had  the  same  number  of  columns  on  the  short  sides,  namely  eight,  while 
on  each  of  the  long  sides  it  had  two  more  than  its  successor,  i.e.  nineteen  instead  of  seventeen.  The 
older  edifice  was  thus,  he  thinks,  about  six  metres  longer  than  the  later,  but  on  the  other  hand 
somewhat  narrower.  The  idea  which  we  find  in  the  Periklean  Parthenon,  of  making  the  eastern  cella 
by  itself  a cKarcipnedns  veu >r,  as  long  as  the  entire  old  'EKaTopncScv,  was  no  doubt  embodied  in  the 
old  construction  also.0  The  greater  length  of  this  last  must  therefore  have  been  bestowed  upon  the 
western  cella.  Dorpfeld  has  pointed  out  that  the  difference  in  length  between  the  two  temples  just 
corresponds  to  the  depth  of  the  small  rooms  behind  the  west  cella  of  the  old  Hekatompedon.7  We 

1 Cf.  Rohde,  Psyche,  p.  127. 

2 In  the  Altis  at  Olympia,  Paus.  v.  14,  10.  On  the  Akropolis  at  Athens,  AcArlov  apx ■ 1890,  144.  In  the 
Olympieion  at  Athens,  ’Etirip.  apx ■ 1889,  61. 

•!  Cf.  on  this  point  Kohler,  in  Hermes,  xxvi.  1891,  p.  44  seq.,  and  the  inscriptions  he  cites. 

4 O.  Jahn,  De  Antiquiss.  Minervae  Simulacris,  p.  9 seq. 

"I  he  recent  attempt  of  Penrose  to  revive  the  earlier  view  of  the  pre-Persian  origin  of  the  substructions 
seemed  finally  refuted  by  Dorpfeld  (Ath.  Mitth.  xvii.  1892,  p.  158  sqq. ) In  J.  H.  S.  xiii.  32,  however,  he  has 
tried  once  more  to  defend  his  views  against  Dorpfeld,  but  without  bringing  forward  any  new  material  that  could 
alter  his  opponent’s  results.  The  decisive  argument  is  afforded  by  the  character  of  the  filling  of  debris  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Parthenon.  Any  one  who  had  opportunity  to  observe  this  filling  during  the  excavations  must 
fully  agree  with  Dorpfeld  : the  layers  of  building  debris  are  beyond  uncertainty.  Now,  if  the  debris  is  contem- 
porary with  the  Parthenon,  Penrose’s  view  is  thereby  refuted. 

Cf.  Dorpfeld,  Ath.  Mitth.  xvii.  174.  7 Cf.  ibid. 


4^0 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


may  therefore  conjecture  that  the  older  Parthenon  was  intended  to  have  similar  rooms.  Moreover, 
the  whole  cella  was  certainly,  as  Dorpfeld  supposes,  considerably  narrower  than  the  Periklean 
building,  which  needed  so  wide  a cella  simply  for  the  sake  of  the  gigantic  cultus-image.  It  follows 
from  this  that  the  ground-plan  of  the  older  Parthenon  was  essentially  only  an  enlargement  of  the  old 
Hekatompedon,  which  it  was  intended  to  replace  ; therefore  the  worship  of  Erechtheus,  and  all  that 
this  involved,  was  to  be  transferred  to  it.  If  we  further  recollect  that  the  site  of  the  temple  was  so 
chosen  as  to  necessitate  enormous  substructions  on  the  southern  side,  we  shall  realize  that  this  plan 
represented  no  ordinary  degree  of  audacity.  Without  regard  to  the  spot  consecrated  by  antiquity,  and 
the  proximity  of  the  divine  ‘ tokens,’  the  cult  was  to  be  transferred  in  its  entirety — of  course  after  the 
offering  of  the  proper  dpearrjpia — to  a site  on  the  Citadel  which  had  first  of  all  to  be  in  great  part 
artificially  produced. 

No  evidence  has  come  down  to  us  as  to  the  date  of  the  temple,  or  the  person  who  erected 
it  We  know,  however,  that  it  must  belong  to  the  time  between  479  and  447,  and  that  the  work 
was  abandoned  before  it  was  finished  ; only  the  lowest  drums  of  the  marble  columns  had  been 
prepared,  and  on  these  the  fluting  had  not  been  cut.  Moreover,  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  date 
of  erection  comes  very  much  nearer  to  the  upper  limit  (479)  than  to  the  lower  (447) ; the  Periklean 
edifice  is  so  widely  different  from  the  older  one,  that  a comparatively  long  interval  between  the  two  is 
probable.  The  difference  is  especially  clear  in  the  substructions  added  on  the  north  side.  The  steps, 
moreover,  are  of  marble  in  the  Periklean  building,  of  poros  stone  in  the  older  edifice.  A third  and 
topmost  step  of  the  latter  was  entirely  taken  away,1  and  a part  of  the  second  removed.  The  marble 
drums  of  columns  prepared  for  the  older  building  were  thrown  aside,  and  used  in  levelling  up  the 
ground  about  the  Periklean  building.  Some  of  them  had  been,  probably  at  an  earlier  date,  built  into 
the  north  wall.2  The  plan  was  altered,  and  the  foundations  carried  farther  north.  This  whole 
revolutionary  proceeding  is  certainly  easier  to  explain  if  the  work  had  lain  for  some  length  of  time 
untouched  when  Perikles  began  to  build. 

The  older  Parthenon  has  been  ascribed  to  Kimon,  the  only  difference  of  opinion  being  as  to  the 
time  of  his  life  to  which  it  belongs.  Thus  Kopp  considers  that  the  work  did  not  begin  till  after  the 
return  of  Kimon  from  exile,  about  454-3  But  on  this  theory  there  would  be  an  interval  of  only  a year 
or  two  between  it  and  the  Periklean  Parthenon,  and  that  is  practically  impossible.  Dorpfeld, 
therefore,  conjectured  that  the  building  was  begun  some  time  earlier,  soon  after  the  banishment  of 
Themistokles  (471).  My  belief  is  that  we  ought  to  go  still  further  back,  and  place  it  in  the  years 
immediately  following  479. 

The  only  fact  that  appears  to  point  to  Kimon  is  that  the  south  wall  of  the  Citadel  is  closely 
connected  with  Kimon’s  name,  and  it  is  assumed  that  the  substructions  of  the  Parthenon  are 
contemporary  with  the  south  wall,  the  two  being  parts  of  a single  design.  Contemporary,  however, 
it  is  not.  The  south  wall  is  undoubtedly  later  than  the  foundations  of  the  Parthenon,4  and  has  no 
necessary  connexion  with  them.  On  the  contrary,  the  method  pursued  in  levelling  up  the  ground  to 
the  south  of  the  Parthenon  seems  to  me  to  show  that  when  the  foundations  of  the  temple  were  built 
there  was  as  yet  no  thought  of  the  great  south  wall.  It  was  clearly  intended  in  the  first  place  to  raise 
only  the  part  between  the  projected  temple  and  the  old  cyclopean  circuit-wall,  so  as  to  form  a terrace 
surrounding  the  temple.  For  the  support  of  the  masses  of  up-piled  materials  it  was  necessary  to 
heighten  the  old  circuit  wall.  This  was  done  by  means  of  the  scarped  ‘ supporting  wall  ’ 5 ; it 
starts  to  the  south-west  of  the  temple  from  the  old  circuit  wall,  but  is  carried  on  in  a straight  line, 
cutting  off  the  curve  which  the  other  wall  makes  outwards.  This  outer  wall  seems  to  have  been 
partially  removed  in  this  place  ; at  least  stones  from  it  were  used.  The  supporting  wall  ended,  no 
doubt,  where  the  museum  now  stands,  and  abutted  on  the  circuit  wall,  which  at  that  spot  turns  inward 
again.  It  was  probably  intended  subsequently  to  face  the  outer  side  of  the  supporting  wall  with 
better  stones  ; but  the  wall  would  never  have  been  erected  if  the  south  wall  had  been  planned  at  the 

1 Dorpfeld  (/oe.  cit.  166)  thought  it  more  probable  that  the  building  departed  from  the  general  rale  in  having 
only  two  steps  ; he  has  now,  however,  changed  his  opinion,  as  he  has  informed  me,  and  believes  it  can  be  proved 
with  certainty  that  there  were  three  steps ; and  this  is,  in  any  case,  more  probable. 

2 It  is  uncertain  when  this  was  done.  Dorpfeld  (loc.  cit.  p.  189)  conjectured  that  it  was  at  the  time  of  the 

battle  of  Tanagra.  In  answer  to  a question  from  me  as  to  whether  the  drums  were  necessarily  built  in  before 
the  Periklean  Parthenon  was  begun,  he  writes  that  he  thinks  this  must  have  been  so  ; because  1 if  the  drums  had 
not  been  built  in,  Perikles  would  certainly  have  used  them  for  his  new  columns,  since  they  are  not  damaged  like 
those  found  near  the  Parthenon.’  3 Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  v.  1890,  270. 

4 Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  xiii.  432.  Dorpfeld  further  corroborates  this  by  letter:  ‘There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
south  wall  of  the  Citadel  is  later  than  the  foundations  of  the  temple  ; at  most,  its  lowest  courses  maybe  contemporary 
with  the  temple.  The  length  of  time  that  intervened  between  the  two  buildings  I do  not  venture  to  estimate.’ 

r>  Marked  with  the  number  20  on  the  plan  in  AeA rtou,  1889,  p.  50.  Cf.  Ath.  Mitth.  xiii.  432. 


THE  FIRST  PARTHENON 


421 


same  time.  The  latter  is  more  recent,  and  the  space  between  it  and  the  supporting  wall  was  not  filled 
up  till  later. 

Now  the  south  wall  is  dated  by  the  well-known  and  quite  trustworthy  testimony  given  in 
Plutarch,  Kim.  13  ; it  was  erected  by  Kimon  after  the  battle  on  the  Eurymedon  from  the  money 
received  as  ransom  for  the  prisoners.  Plutarch  here  draws  from  a very  well-informed  authority,  who 
purports  to  be  very  complete  in  his  account  of  what  Kimon  did  for  the  city  in  the  way  of  buildings 
and  the  like.1  Even  the  trees  which  he  planted  in  the  Agora  and  the  embellishment  of  the 
Academy  are  mentioned.  The  south  wall  is  named  as  an  independent  and  important  construction  ; 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  such  in  fact.  The  old  Parthenon  was  older,  and  had  nothing  to  do  either 
with  this  or  with  Kimon.  Before  the  battle  on  the  Eurymedon,  it  would  have  been  scarcely  possible 
for  Kimon  to  set  on  foot  such  a work,  if  only  on  account  of  his  continual  campaigns.  If,  however, 
it  had  been  begun  by  him,  he  would  surely  after  that  battle,  which  brought  such  abundant  booty, 
have  applied  the  money  to  carrying  on  the  temple,  not  to  the  erection  of  the  south  wall.  From  the 
fact  that  he  did  not  touch  the  unfinished  temple  at  a time  when  he  was  at  the  height  of  his  renown, 
with  enormous  sums  of  money  at  his  disposal,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  erection  of  the  temple 
had  been  begun  by  the  party  adverse  to  him. 

All  works  of  importance  in  the  Athens  of  those  times  ought  certainly  to  be  judged  with  reference 
to  the  great  parties  which  were  at  strife  with  one  another,  and  alternately  gained  the  predominance. 
Kimon  ignored  the  older  Parthenon,  because  it  had  been  begun  by  the  party  of  Themistokles.  The 
building  must  belong  to  the  time  immediately  after  479,  when  Aristeides  and  Themistokles  were 
the  npocniiTai  tov  Srjpov,  as  Aristotle  expresses  it  (7 roX.  ’Ad.  23,  3 ; cf.  28,  2). 

As  early  as  the  sixties  of  the  fifth  century  there  was  a great  new  temple  on  the  Citadel  ; this 
follows  from  the  inscription  C.  I.  A.  i.  1 (iv.  p.  3),  if  Kirchhoff  and  Dittenberger2  are  correct  in  their 
highly  probable  restoration  of  the  passage  : iv  7rep(/3]dXco[t  t<S  vot<>6](v  tov  rf/r  ’A6rivata[s  apxalov  re]&> 
ep7rdXet.  For  this  inscription  is,  according  to  Kirchhoff  and  Dittenberger,  without  doubt  con- 
siderably older  than  460,  and  equally  without  doubt  later  than  the  destruction  of  about  480  : it 
belongs,  they  hold,  to  just  that  time  at  which  we  consider  the  first  Parthenon  to  have  been  begun  ; 
as  contrasted  with  this  new  building,  the  temple  which  it  was  to  replace  was  the  dpxaios  vetbs.3  This 
inscription  is  also  interesting  in  another  respect,  as  confirming  the  view  that  the  ‘ Old  Temple’ 
contained  no  places  at  all  for  the  storing  of  money.  The  Eleusinian  treasure,  which  is  here  in 
question,  is  to  be  kept  in  a peribolos,  near  the  temple  ; and  this  would  assuredly  not  have  been  the 
case  if  the  temple  had  had  ‘ treasure  chambers.’ 4 

The  plan  of  restoring  the  forsaken  and  destroyed  city  in  479  undoubtedly  included  the  re-erection 
of  the  shrines.  The  Athenians  had  not  by  any  means,  like  the  Ionians,  bound  themselves  by  an  oath 
to  leave  the  ruins  standing.5  When  the  ancient  image  of  Polias  re-entered  her  desolate  shrine,  it 
can  have  needed  no  powerful  persuasion  to  induce  the  Athenians  to  undertake  a splendid  restoration. 
But  in  the  method  pursued  we  see  the  work  of  an  original,  unscrupulous,  and  revolutionary  mind  : 
the  new  building  was  transferred  from  the  site  consecrated  by  antiquity  to  the  sloping  south  side  of 
the  Citadel,  and  in  order  to  widen  the  hill  at  this  point  numbers  of  damaged  architectural  and  statuary 
fragments  were  used  to  level  up  the  ground.  In  all  this  we  seem  to  trace  genuine  Themistoklean 
SdvoTrjs  and  roXjua.0 

1 It  has  been  supposed,  with  good  reason,  that  the  authority  was  Theopompos.  Theopompos  is  favourable 

in  his  representation  of  Kimon,  whereas  he  decries  Themistokles.  2 Dittenberger,  Syll.  384. 

3 Dorpfeld  (Atk.  Mitth.  xii.  39)  reads  bni<r6]ev  instead  of  vorodev  ; he  interprets  the  place  to  be  the  Opistho- 
domos  of  the  ‘Old  Temple.’  The  preceding  letters,  however,  oAw,  he  leaves  quite  unregarded.  Curtius 
(Stadtgesch.  p.  132,  note  1)  likewise  reads  6iri<r0]tv,  and  before  it  iv  t$  BjbAa.  This  last  restoration  is,  however, 
incorrect,  since  it  takes  no  count  of  the  number  of  letters  missing,  but  inserts  a letter  too  few.  And 
how  could  the  Opisthodomos  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ be^called,  as  Curtius  supposes  it  to  be,  ObAos  UnvarBev 
tov  vaov?  It  seems  to  me  indubitable  that  the  passage  cannot  refer  to  any  part  of  the  temple  itself.  Kirchhoff’s 
restoration,  exactly  supplying  the  lacuna,  is  at  any  rate  highly  probable. — -Petersen  (Atk.  Mitth.  xii.  65)  rightly 
lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  inscription  is,  according  to  Dorpfeld’s  estimate,  older  than  the  Parthenon  ; and 
from  this  he  only  draws  a false  inference  on  account  of  his  conception  of  the  ‘ Tyrants’  Temple.’ 

4 We  may  conjecture  that  the  same  building,  to  the  south  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple,’  is  intended  in  the  old 
Ilekatompedon  inscription,  C.  I.  A.  iv.  p.  138,  col.  ii.  11.  849:  j col  vo]t66cv  t[oD  v]eu>  ivrbs  tov  k . . . The 
following  restoration  would  exactly  supply  the  number  of  letters  wanting  in  the  lacuna  : ivrbs  tov  k[uicAoii  tea  1 
KaO']  airav  rb  'E/caT<fitire8o>'.  With  this  agrees  the  gloss  in  Hesychius,  kukAos ’ irepiPoAos.  Now  to  what  deity  can 
have  been  dedicated  the  circular  peribolos  to  the  south  of  the  ‘Old  Temple’?  I am  inclined  to  conjecture  that 
it  was  sacred  to  Ge,  whose  worship  in  this  place  is  attested  by  the  well-known  rock-cut  inscription  of  later  date 
(C.  /.  A.  iii.  166  ; cf.  infra,  VII.  p.  468).  Perhaps  the  kvkAos  yds  of  a recently  published  sacred  law  from  Kos 
was  likewise  a peribolos  of  Ge  (cf.  Tdpffer,  Ath.  Mitth.  xvi.  427  set/.,  who  leaves  this  possibility  an  open  question). 

5 That  the  oath  applies  only  to  the  Ionians  has  been  proved  by  Kopp  ( Jahrb . d.  Inst.  1890,  p.  272).  Puchstein 

calls  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Ionians  did  actually  keep  the  oath  for  a long  while  ; none  of  the  restorations 
or  rebuildings  of  the  great  temples  of  Ionia  belong  to  the  fifth  century.  6 Plut.  Kim.  5. 


422 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


On  this  theory  we  have  an  excellent  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  ‘ Persian  debris’  between 
the  Parthenon  and  the  supporting  wall  looks  so  fresh  and  is  of  so  homogeneous  a character  : it  had 
not  lain  about  year  after  year  on  the  Citadel,  but  was  used  for  this  work  immediately  after  the 
destruction. 

We  have  an  excellent  explanation,  too,  for  the  discontinuance  of  the  building  so  magnificently 
begun,  just  as  the  marble  superstructure  was  beginning  to  rise  ; we  see  why  the  work  was  broken  off 
and  allowed  to  lie  unfinished.  The  reason  was  the  fall  of  Themistokles,  the  definite  union  of 
Aristeides  with  Ivimon,  and  the  beginning  of  the  predominance  of  Kimon’s  party.  Even  as,  after  the 
fall  of  the  Peisistratids,  the  great  Olympieion  was  left  untouched  for  several  centuries,  so  was  it  now 
with  the  new  temple  on  the  Citadel.  The  enterprise  of  Themistokles  was  no  doubt  abused  as  too 
expensive,  as  the  scheme  of  a madman ; the  pious  and  conservative  were  offended  at  the  purposed 
displacement  of  the  old  centre  of  worship,  and  it  was  probably  said  that  too  much  had  been  begun, 
that  the  first  thing  was  to  complete  the  fortification  of  the  city  and  harbour.  This  was  the  spirit  in 
which  Kimon  laid  the  foundations  of  the  long  walls  in  the  marshes  of  the  Halipedon,  and  erected 
the  strong  south  wall  of  the  Citadel.  This  was  assuredly  to  be  no  mere  ‘adornment’  of  the 
Akropolis,1  but  a protection  on  the  weak  and  accessible  side.  The  Pyrgos  at  the  western  extremity 
of  the  wall  only  lost  its  significance  as  a fortification  by  the  erection  of  the  Periklean  Propylaia  and  of 
the  temple  of  Nike.2  But  to  the  builder  of  the  old  Parthenon  the  Citadel  was  no  fortress;  in  the 
eyes  of  Themistokles  the  Peiraieus  was  the  true  fortress  of  Athens  ; though  for  him,  as  for  others, 
the  Akropolis  was,  and  must  remain,  the  religious  centre.  Yet  the  strife  of  parties  brought  it  about 
that  from  479  to  438  the  Polias  possessed  upon  the  Citadel  only  a temple  provisionally  repaired  after 
conflagration  and  destruction. 

At  the  time  to  which  we  ascribe  the  beginning  of  the  great  temple,  immediately  after  479,  the  old 
antagonists,  Themistokles  and  Aristeides,  united  by  the  triumph  of  Salamis,  acted  in  harmony  for  a 
while  at  least.  It  was  a time  at  which  everything  was  still  guided  by  the  counsels  of  Themistokles.3 
The  building  of  the  city  wall  he  accomplished  in  concert  with  Aristeides.4  The  Parthenon  was  no 
doubt  likewise  planned  with  his  approval,  and  probably  the  party  of  the  Alkmaionidai,  politically  in 
close  connexion  with  that  of  Aristeides,  was  also  favourable.5  In  479  Xanthippos  and  Aristeides 
were  strategoi.  The  Alkmaionidai  must  clearly  have  had  an  especial  interest  in  the  erection  of  a 
splendid  shrine  to  the  Polias  on  a spot  other  than  that  desecrated  by  themselves  ; such  a work  would 
necessarily  tend  to  blot  out  the  memory  of  their  ancient  crime.  And  the  idea  of  constructing  such  a 
temple  wholly  of  marble  (this  was  the  first  instance  at  Athens)  had  been  already  carried  into 
execution  by  the  Alkmaionidai  in  the  facade  of  the  temple  at  Delphi.  On  this  view,  then,  it  appears 
as  specially  appropriate  that  the  man  who  subsequently  resumed  the  work  should  have  been  Perikles, 
the  kinsman  of  the  Alkmaionidai,  and  participator  in  their  curse,  the  il-yos. 

Indeed,  by  attributing  the  foundation  of  the  Parthenon,  not  to  Kimon,  but  to  causes  resulting  from 
the  position  of  parties  after  479,  we  place  the  building  in  quite  a new  historical  light.  We  must  bring 
before  our  minds  the  two  great  party  programmes  which,  from  the  time  of  the  city’s  liberation  from 
her  tyrants,  are  traceable  throughout  the  course  of  Athenian  politics,  and  which,  to  a great  extent, 
are  connected  with  the  ancient  families  of  the  Philaidai  and  Alkmaionidai,  and  represent  their 
traditions.  Then  it  will  be  clear  how  little  appropriate  the  Parthenon  is  to  the  side  on  which  are 
ranged  the  names  of  Miltiades,  Kimon,  Thucydides,  and  of  which  the  principles  were  solidly  conserv- 
ative. Their  tendency  was  antagonistic  to  all  bold  innovations.  Thus,  in  particular,  Kimon’s  work  on 
the  Akropolis,  the  south  wall,  arose  from  a policy  so  short-sighted  as  to  be  almost  timorous.  The 
valiant,  open-hearted  hero  was  certainly,  in  intellectual  endowments,  undistinguished,  circumscribed, 
wanting  in  even  the  ordinary  Seu-or/js-  ’Amim'.8  It  is  to  the  other  side,  the  side  of  Kleisthenes,  Themi- 
stokles, Perikles,  which  shook  off  the  yoke  of  tradition  and  made  progress  its  own,  that  the  Parthenon 
likewise  belongs.  Thus  Perikles,  in  this  case  as  in  others,  appears  as  the  successor  who  carried  on 
the  policy  of  Themistokles  and  put  his  ideas  into  execution,  whereas  it  would  be  incomprehensible 
that  Perikles  should  take  up  a project  of  Kimon.  The  audacious  conception  of  the  temple,  then, 
takes  its  place  appropriately  beside  the  audacious  erection  of  the  city  wall,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
Peiraieus  : all  these  were  originated  by  Themistokles,  and  the  first  is  no  less  significant  than  the 
others  of  his  energetic  thoroughness,  of  his  abolition  of  ancient  trammels.  He  embodied  too,  and 

1 As  Curtius  assumes,  Stadtgesch.  130. 

~ Cf.  Wolters  in  Bonner  Studien,  p.  92  sqq.  So  previously  Robert,  ap.  von  Wilamowitz,  Kydatlien , p.  182. 

3 In  the  first  years  after  Salamis  there  cannot  yet  have  been  any  talk  of  treachery  committed  by  Themistokles. 
Cf.  Bauer,  Themistokles. 

4 Thuc.  i.  91  ; Aristotle,  ’A 6.  wo\.  23,  4.  5 Cf.  Busolt,  Gr.  Gesch.  ii.  54. 

e Stesimbrotos,  ap.  Plut.  Kim.  4. 


PARTHENON  OF  PERIKLES 


423 


expressed,  the  pride  of  Athens  in  her  independence  of  Sparta.  In  earlier  times  the  same  tendency 
which  we  now  recognize  in  the  building  of  the  Parthenon  is  to  be  found  expressed  in  the  removal  of 
the  Prytaneion  from  its  old  site,  and  in  the  founding  of  the  Tholos  by  Kleisthenes.1 

When  Themistokles  was  abandoned  by  those  with  whom  he  had  acted  in  concert  during  the  first 
years  after  Salamis,  when  Aristeides  passed  over  completely  to  Kimon,  and  the  coalition  of  the 
Alkmaionidai  and  Philaidai,  symbolized  by  Kimon’s  marriage  with  Isodike,  thrust  out  the  hated  and 
maligned  Themistokles,  then  the  Parthenon  necessarily  fell  likewise  into  the  background. 


III.  The  Parthenon  of  Pcrikles. 

Not  till  447  was  the  work  resumed  by  Perikles,  with  a somewhat  altered  ground-plan.2 3  It  was 
the  time  when,  after  Kimon’s  death,  Perikles  stood  at  the  head  of  Athenian  politics,  in  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  the  Kimonians,  led  by  Thucydides.  Plostilities  with  the  Persians  were  given  up  ; 
Perikles  wished  for  peace  abroad,  in  order  to  build  up  at  home  the  power  and  splendour  of 
Athens.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  peace  negotiations  belonging  to  this  period,  and  have 
conjectured  (p.  34)  that  Perikles  had  the  colossal  statue  of  Athena  Promachos  erected  on  the  Citadel 
as  a splendid  votive  gift  to  mark  the  conclusion  of  the  Persian  wars.  The  resumption  of  work  on  the 
Parthenon  belongs  to  the  same  group  of  events.  When  the  Persian  war  was  given  up,  the  payments 
of  the  allies,  which  up  to  that  time  had  been  used  for  carrying  on  the  war,  became  available.  If 
they  could  be  successfully  added  to  other  resources,  a speedy  and  splendid  completion  of  the 
Parthenon  would  become  possible. 

With  this  matter  seems  to  me  to  be  connected  an  act  of  Perikles’s  policy  which  has  been  much 
discussed,  and  is  still  constantly  being  shifted  from  one  period  of  his  life  to  another.  I refer  to  the 
proposal  of  a Peace  Congress,  mentioned  by  Plutarch  ( Pcrikl . 17).  All  Hellenes  were  to  be  invited  to 
form  a congress  at  Athens,  to  deliberate  concerning  the  shrines  burned  by  the  barbarians,  the 
sacrifices  for  the  deliverance  of  Hellas  from  the  Persian  crisis,  and  concerning  peace  and  free  inter- 
course by  sea.  It  has  been  rightly  surmised  that  this  decree  is  to  be  connected  with  the  building  of 
the  Parthenon.  But  so  long  as  a Kimonian  Parthenon  was  assumed,  this  gave  rise  to  the  greatest 
difficulties.  The  motion  could,  of  course,  not  have  been  made  while  the  building  of  the  Parthenon 
was  in  progress,  and  even  not  at  a time  when  the  work  had  ceased  only  a year  or  two  before. 
Therefore,  Kopp  recently  proposed  to  date  the  motion  at  circa  459,  earlier  than  Kimon’s  Parthenon,  the 
beginning  of  which  he  places  as  late  as  454  : 3 he  does  not  hesitate  to  suppose  that  in  this  case 
Kimon  carried  out  a project  set  on  foot  by  Perikles.  We  escape  this  difficulty  by  dating  the 
beginning  of  the  older  Parthenon  immediately  after  479.  At  the  death  of  Kimon,  in  the  year  449, 
the  building  had  long  lain  an  abandoned  design  ; and  a large  part  of  the  marble  drums  prepared  for 
its  columns  had  most  probably  been  already  built  into  the  north  wall.  Thus  the  resumption  of  the 
work  needed  to  be  specially  urged.  That  motion  of  Perikles  must  belong  to  a time  shortly  after  449, 
and  its  immediate  practical  result  was  the  beginning  in  447  of  the  splendid  new  Parthenon,  with  the 
help  of  the  payments  of  the  allies. 

Perikles,  in  his  projected  Peace  Congress,  did  not  in  the  least  enter  on  ‘ the  inheritance 
bequeathed  by  Kimon  ’ :4  on  the  contrary,  it  was  to  inaugurate  the  new  Periklean  policy,  which  com- 
prised the  conclusion  of  the  Persian  war,  peace  within  the  limits  reached,  and  free  intercourse  by  sea 
under  the  hegemony  of  Athens.  That  the  congress  would  come  to  nothing,  Perikles,  of  course,  fore- 
saw. His  real  purpose  was  to  represent  the  restoration  of  the  shrines  as  a Pan-Hellenic  concern. 
Then  clearly  no  one  could  find  fault  with  Athens  if  she  appropriated  for  her  own  sacred  buildings  part 
of  the  funds  of  the  confederation  hitherto  devoted  to  the  war  with  Persia.  The  Athenians  could  then 
say  : ‘The  religious  duty  arising  on  the  conclusion  of  the  war  with  the  barbarians, which  the  others 
refuse  to  perform,  we  are  performing,  we  Athenians  and  allies,  in  memory  of  the  Persian  crisis  from 
which  we  delivered  you.’  Thus  on  the  failure  of  that  congress  there  no  doubt  followed  immediately 

1 Cf.  Wachsmuth,  Stadt  At  hen,  i.  506  seq.,  ii.  315. 

2 There  was  in  the  Parthenon  a picture  dedicated  by  the  sons  of  Themistokles,  and  representing  Themistokles 
himself  (Paus.  i.  I,  2)  : this  was  no  doubt  one  of  the  first  votive  offerings  in  the  new  building  of  Perikles,  and  the 
great  man’s  sons  were  allowed  by  means  of  it  to  keep  alive  the  recollection  of  the  original  founder  of  the 
Parthenon. 

3 Kopp  in  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  v.  1890,  p.  268  sqq.  Curtins  (Stadtgesch.  139)  rightly  rejects  this  date  as  loo  early  ; 

he  argues  that  it  must  be  so,  if  only  because  the  proposal  implies  a high  degree  of  self-confidence  on  the  part  both 
of  the  Athenians  and  of  Perikles.  Curtius’s  estimate,  about  445,  is  too  late,  since  by  that  time  the  building  of 
the  Parthenon  was  in  full  swing.  i Kopp,  toe.  cit.  271. 


4-4 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


the  proposal  of  Perikles  to  begin  the  building  of  the  Parthenon  with  the  gold  and  ivory  statue  of  the 
goddess,  and  to  use  for  this  purpose  part  of  the  funds  of  the  alliance. 

That  some  of  this  money  was  in  fact  expended  on  the  building  is  proved  by  the  extant  fragments 
of  the  accounts.1  The  receipts  of  the  Epistatai  of  the  work  regularly  include,  besides  sums  from  the 
treasure  of  the  goddess  and  from  various  sources  the  designations  of  which  are  mutilated,  an  item  napa 
'EWrivorapuaiv.  This  can  refer  only  to  payments  of  the  allies,  crvppaxiKol  (f>opoi,  which  passed  into 
the  treasury  of  the  Hellenotamiai ; and  it  is  not  a case  of  the  pva  and  tov  ra\dvrov , the  sixtieth 
of  the  tribute  which  belonged  to  the  goddess  ; money  belonging  to  the  confederation  is  meant. 

In  the  years  447 — 445  there  arose  a strong  opposition  led  by  Thucydides,  which  passionately 
opposed  this  application  of  the  funds  of  the  alliance,  and  loudly  protested  against  it  in  the  popular 
assembly,2  until  Thucydides  was  removed  by  ostracism  and  his  Hetairia  dissolved.  Later,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  building  of  the  Propylaia,  Perikles  seems  to  have  proceeded  with  greater  caution. 
The  contribution  furnished  by  the  Hellenotamiai,  as  we  learn  from  the  extant  accounts  belonging  to 
the  year  434 — 433,  is  designated  as  pvd  and  tov  raXdvrov  : it  is  only  a sixtieth  of  the  tribute,  a second 
in  addition  to  the  first  which  from  the  beginning  had  passed  into  the  treasury  of  the  goddess.3  As 
Perikles  succeeded  by  means  of  the  proposal  for  a Peace  Congress  in  finding  a suitable  pretext  for 
adorning  the  Citadel  of  Athens  with  the  help  of  the  resources  of  the  confederation,  so  the  Athenians 
somewhat  later,  probably  likewise  under  the  guidance  of  Perikles,  had  the  skill  to  procure  themselves 
by  a similar  proceeding  the  means  of  increasing  the  splendour  of  the  shrine  at  Eleusis  : they  exacted 
those  contributions — a kind  of  Peter’s  Pence — which  the  Eleusinian  decree  of  taxation  required  from 
Athens  and  her  allies,  and  requested  from  the  rest  of  the  Hellenes.4  The  new  Parthenon  built  by 
Perikles  differed  from  the  older,  as  was  noted  above,  mainly  in  the  greater  width  of  the  cella,  required 
by  the  colossal  image,  and  also  in  the  absence  of  the  two  small  chambers  of  the  west  cella,  which 
made  the  whole  length  less.  Even  the  older  Parthenon  had  in  all  probability  departed  from  the 
model  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ by  making  the  east  cella  considerably  the  larger,  whereas  in  the  £ Old 
Temple’  it  is  somewhat  smaller  than  the  west  cella  including  the  two  chambers.  This  pre-eminence 
of  the  east  cella  corresponded  to  the  superior  importance  of  Athena  at  this  time  compared  with  the 
old-fashioned  forms  of  ritual  represented  by  Erechtheus.  In  the  building  of  Perikles  it  is  still  more 
emphasized,  the  chambers  of  the  west  cella  being  given  up  altogether.  We  must  conclude  from  these 
facts  that  those  who  planned  the  older  Parthenon  still  contemplated  the  transference  of  the  whole 
ritual  of  Erechtheus,  which,  with  all  that  pertained  to  it,  was  established  in  the  west  half  of  the  ‘ Old 
Temple.’  The  opposition,  which  brought  about  the  abandonment  of  the  projected  building  as  a 
whole,  probably  resisted  this  part  of  the  scheme  with  special  vehemence,  since  the  worship  of 
Erechtheus  seemed  united  by  peculiarly  close  bonds  with  the  neighbourhood  of  the  old  ‘ tokens  ’ 
and  the  graves.  It  was,  we  must  further  infer,  by  a skilful  concession  to  this  feeling  that  Perikles 
relinquished  the  transference  of  the  worship  of  Erechtheus.  Accordingly  Perikles  left  the  ‘ Old 
Temple  ’ standing  as  it  had  been  provisionally  restored  after  480.  It  was  to  retain  at  least  the  worship 
of  Erechtheus  just  as  before  ; only  Athena  received  a splendid  new  abode.  That  even  after  the 
completion  of  the  Parthenon  Perikles  had  no  intention  of  erecting  a new  temple  for  Erechtheus,  and 
therefore  wished  to  leave  the  ‘ Old  Temple’  standing,  may  clearly  be  inferred  from  his  then  taking 
in  hand  so  great  a work  as  the  building  of  the  Propylaia. 

The  west  cella  of  the  Parthenon  might,  therefore,  have  been  omitted  altogether.  Perikles, 
however,  only  left  out  the  chambers  and  retained  the  cella.  His  main  reason  doubtless  was  that  he 
did  not  wish  to  depart  too  entirely  from  the  lines  of  the  existing  foundations.  His  west  cella,  then, 
was  a second  chamber  for  the  goddess,  to  whom  the  whole  building  belonged.  The  place  was  called 
‘ Parthenon,’5  according  to  my  present  view,  because  in  the  women’s  dwelling-place  that  name  was 
given  to  the  part  which  was  most  carefully  shut  off,  the  secret  chamber  into  which  the  maidens 
retired,  and  in  which  it  was  customary  to  keep  precious  possessions,  remembrances,  and  relics.6  The 
great  east  cella  was  called  6 vews  6 eKOTopneftos,  the  Cella  of  a Hundred  Feet,  as  distinguished  from 
the  old  expression  to  'EKOTopnedov,  which  included  several  cellas.  This  east  cella  was  the  hall  of 

1 C.  I.  A.  i.  300  sqq. ; Michaelis,  Pans.  Descr.  Arcis,  2nd  ed.  p.  40. 

2 Plut.  Perikl.  12  sqq.  With  regard  to  his  authority,  see  Busolt,  Gr.  Gesc/i.  ii.  500,  note. 

3 This  is  the  interpretation  given  by  Christ,  De  Publ.  Pop.  Ath.  Rationibus,  p.  13.  Cf.  Busolt,  ii.  568. 

4 It  is  to  be  specially  noted  that  the  877  pos  ruv  ’Mrivaioov  reserves  to  itself  the  absolute  right  of  determining  what 
dvaffrj juarct  are  to  be  offered  from  the  money  thus  collected.  With  regard  to  the  general  question  of  the  decree,  see, 
as  the  latest  authorities,  Holm,  Gr.  Gescli.  ii.  274;  Curtius,  Stadtgcsch.  159;  Rubensohn,  Mysterienheiligthiimer , 
pp.  36,  52,  77.  According  to  Loschcke  (. Enneakninosepisode , p.  18  sqq.),  it  was  not  Perikles  who  originated  it. 

5 It  is  so  called  in  the  official  lists  drawn  up  by  the  treasurers,  which  lists  begin  in  434.  The  name  is  applied 
by  transference  to  the  whole  building  first  in  Demosthenes  (xxii.  13). 

6 Thus  the  lance  of  Pelops  is  kept  in  Iphigeneia’s  Parthenon  (Eurip.  Iph.  Taur.  826). 


THE  OPISTHODOMOS 


425 


state,  the  place  of  festivals,  in  which  the  goddess  herself  was  manifested  in  her  image.  Her  ‘ Par- 
thenon ’ was  the  west  cella,  shut  off  by  itself,  which  in  the  building  of  Perildes  had  been  converted 
into  a second  chamber  of  the  dwelling  of  the  maiden  goddess.  Now  the  name  ‘ Parthenon’  already 
includes  the  meaning  of  a place  where  can  be  stored  objects  of  all  kinds  that  have  to  be  kept  shut  up. 
And  for  this  purpose  it  was  in  fact  used,  though  not,  however,  for  storing  money. 

The  common  notion  is  that  the  treasure  of  the  confederation,  or  the  Empire,  which  in  454  was 
transferred  from  Delos  to  Athens,  was  kept  in  the  temple  of  Athena  on  the  Akropolis  ; 1 it  was 
formerly  even  thought  that  the  Opisthodomos  of  the  Parthenon  must  have  already  stood  complete  in 
454.  All  this,  however,  is  a mistake  : the  treasure  of  the  confederation,  into  which  passed  the  tribute 
of  the  allied  states,  was  administered  by  the  Hellenotamiai.  We  do  not  know  where  their  official  place 
of  business  was;  probably  in  the  lower  city.2  That  it  was  not  in  the  ‘Opisthodomos’  on  the 
Akropolis  is  clear  from  the  celebrated  inscription  (C.  1.  A.  i.  32)  which  lays  down  rules  for  the 
administration  of  the  treasures  in  the  ‘Opisthodomos’  in  the  year  435 — 434.  It  is  there  assumed 

that  the  treasurers  of  the  goddess  are  already  installed  in  the  Opisthodomos.  The  new  regulations 
refer  to  the  appointment  by  lot  of  treasurers  for  the  other  gods.  They  are  to  share  in  the 
Opisthodomos  with  those  of  Athena,  the  one  group  having  the  right  side,  the  other  the  left,  as  the 
scene  of  their  official  duties.  Moreover,  it  is  decreed  that  the  Hellenotamiai  should  from  time  to 
time  deposit  the  surplus  of  their  treasure  with  the  Tamiai  of  Athena,  who  are  to  take  over  the 
administration  of  these  sums.3  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  Opisthodomos  was  not  used  by  the 
Hellenotamiai,  who  administered  the  funds  of  the  confederation,  but  only  by  the  Tamiai  of  Athena 
and  of  the  other  gods. 

But  even  these  Tamiai  stored  their  money  in  the  ‘Opisthodomos,’  not  in  the  Parthenon.  Now 
the  Opisthodomos  has  hitherto  been  usually  regarded  as  a part  of  the  Periklean  temple,  or  as  a part 
of  the  ‘Old  Temple’  (Dorpfeld,  Curtius,  White4)  ; but  Milchhofer5  seems  to  me  to  have  proved  that 
it  was  a separate  and  independent  building  on  the  side  of  the  Citadel  farthest  from  the  approach  ; 
that  it  was,  in  fact,  a ‘ back  building  ’ (dmo-dubonos)  of  the  Akropolis.0  And  with  the  old  theory  on 

1 Cf.  recently  Curtius,  Stadtgesch.  132. 

2 This  is  the  view  of  Kohler,  Abh.  d.  Berl.  Akad.  1869,  p.  103,  note.  The  writers  who  mention  the  transference 
of  the  treasure  from  Delos  only  say  that  it  was  brought  to  Athens,  not  that  it  was  taken  to  the  Akropolis. 

3 Kohler  (Abh.  d.  Berl.  Akad.  1869,  104)  had  already  formed  this  conception  of  the  relation  between  the  two 
boards.  KirchhofFs  view  (Abh.  Berl.  Akad.  1876)  is  that  after  the  transference  of  the  treasure  to  Athens  the 
annual  receipts  of  the  confederation,  consisting  of  the  tribute  paid,  were  deposited  by  the  Hellenotamiai  with 
the  treasurers  of  Athena,  and  that  this  arrangement  was  only  re-enacted  in  435 — 434  ; he  considers  that  the  two 
boards  always  performed  their  functions  in  the  same  place.  But  this  theory  is  untenable.  The  tribute  (including 
the  Sf  Karri  from  the  Bosporos  ; cf.  Beloch,  Rhein.  Mus.  1884,  34  sqq. ) passed  into  the  treasury  of  the  Hellenotamiai, 
and  they  administered  it.  The  inscription  (C.  I.  A.  i.  32)  must  be  understood  as  enacting  that  they  should 
deposit  with  the  treasurers  of  Athena  any  surplus  that  might  remain  at  the  end  of  the  year.  This  was  shown 
by  J.  Christ  (Be  Pnbl.  Pop.  Athen.  Rationibus,  Greifsw.  Diss.  1879,  p.  14)  : he  supplies  in  the  inscription 
ra  6(ca[(TT0T6  irtpiovra,  which  is  probably  more  correct  than  ■ysvop.eva.  Christ’s  interpretation  was  supported 
by  Lipsius,  Busolt  (Gr.  Gesch.  ii.  422),  and  Thumser  (in  Hermann’s  Griech.  Staatsalterth.  p.  630).  The  sums  of 
money  thus  deposited  were  of  course,  as  Kirchhoff  has  seen,  not  intended  to  pass  into  Athena’s  treasure.  The 
administration  of  the  treasures  at  Delos  affords  an  analogy  ; there  the  ra/nai  (who  would  answer  to  the  Helleno- 
tamiai at  Athens)  deliver  a certain  smaller  part  of  the  state  revenues  (cf.  Schoffer,  De  Deli  Bis.  Rebus,  p.  120)  to 
the  ieporroioL  at  the  temple  (these  answer  to  the  treasurers  of  the  goddess  at  Athens)  ; these  sums  are  kept  in  a 
special  Stipotrla  kiBwtos  ; they  are  a deposit  in  the  hands  of  the  Uporroiol,  who  alone  administer  the  treasures  in  the 
temple,  as  at  Athens  the  rapiai  rrjs  6eov  have  the  management  of  the  Opisthodomos.  But  did  this  depositing  of 
surplus  funds  on  the  part  of  the  Hellenotamiai,  determined  upon  in  435 — 434,  ever  actually  take  place?  When  the 
war  had  once  begun  it  certainly  did  not,  since  then  all  moneys  received  by  the  Hellenotamiai  were  at  once  paid 
away.  There  have  as  yet  been  found  no  accounts  recording  payments  made  by  the  ra/xlai  rrjs  Beov  from  funds  of 
the  state  deposited  with  them  ; and  yet  this  must  have  been  the  case,  if  Kirchhoff’s  views  were  correct.  The 
payments  made  by  the  r.  r.  0eov  to  the  Hellenotamiai,  or  directly  to  the  generals,  from  01.  86,  4 onward,  were, 
as  Kirchhoff  has  seen,  taken  from  the  property  of  the  goddess,  and  were  to  be  paid  back  subsequently  Therefore 
from  as  early  as  01.  86,  4 there  was  no  deposit  of  money  belonging  to  the  state  in  the  charge  of  the  treasurer's 
of  the  gods. — In  the  fourth  century  also  these  latter  held  in  theory  the  management  of  the  reserve  funds  of  the 
state,  when  at  any  time  there  were  such  funds.  But  this  does  not  in  the  least  imply  that,  as  Frankel  asserted 
(Histor.  Philol.  Aufsiitze,  Festschr.  f.  E.  Curtius.  1884,  p.  40),  the  functions  of  the  Hellenotamiai  were  transferred  to 
them  ; the  Hellenotamiai  had  always  managed  the  current  receipts  only,  never  a reserve  fund. — It  is  further  to  be 
noted  that  Kirchhoff’s  view  concerning  the  sixtieth  of  the  cpipoi  given  to  the  goddess  is  of  course  impossible, 
according  to  our  theory.  He  holds  that  this  sixtieth,  the  airapxij  of  the  tribute  given  to  Athena,  was  offered  as 
a kind  of  rent  for  the  money  of  the  State  deposited  in  her  care.  This  is  in  itself  improbable,  for  that  votive 
gift  was  no  doubt  simply  intended  to  express  thankfulness  to  the  goddess  for  taking  over  the  office  of  protecting 
the  confederation. 

4 Dorpfeld,  Ath.  Mitth.  xii.  210,  xv.  437;  Curtius,  Stadtgesch.  132,  152;  J.  W.  White,  The  Opisthodomos 
on  the  Akropolis  (1894).  The  last  treatise  is  at  present  only  privately  printed,  and  I have  to  thank  the  kindness 
of  the  author  for  my  knowledge  of  it.  When  it  has  been  made  public,  it  shall  be  discussed  in  more  detail. 

5 Philulogus,  vol.  liii.  (1894)  p.  352  sqq. 

6 The  whole,  of  which  a part  is  designated  omrSohopos,  may  be  the  Akropolis  just  as  well  as  a temple- 
building. The  possibility  of  ‘ Opisthodomos  ’ being  conceived  in  the  former  fashion  is,  moreover,  confirmed  by 

3 1 


426 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


this  point  is  also  overthrown  Dorpfeld’s  argument  which  infers  from  the  mention  of  the  Opistho- 
domos  in  inscriptions  of  the  fourth  century  that  the  ‘ Old  Temple’  still  existed  at  that  period.1 

In  the  ‘ Parthenon  ’ — the  west  cella  of  the  Periklean  temple — were  kept  only  sacred  objects.2  At 
the  time  of  the  war  the  valuables  of  the  Pronaos  and  Parthenon  were  melted  down,  and  finally  (407 — 406) 
reduced  to  a scanty  remnant.  This  remnant  and  some  objects  from  the  ‘ Opisthodomos  ’ were  subse- 
quently brought  into  the  great  cella  of  Athena,  in  order,  we  may  conjecture,  to  prevent  its  appearing 
too  utterly  empty.  The  ‘Parthenon’  itself  is  named  in  the  inscriptions  after  this  only  as  the  place 
containing  the  stele  which  gave  the  data  for  verifying  that  the  image  by  Pheidias  was  intact.  At  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  the  place  was  so  empty  that  it  could  be  assigned  as  a dwelling  to  Demetrios. 

When  the  Periklean  Parthenon  was  built,  then,  the  intention  was  that  the  west  cella  given  by  the 
existing  foundations  should  be  a closed  space  serving  as  a second  chamber  for  the  goddess.  The 
worship  of  Erechtheus  was  to  remain  where  it  was,  attached  to  the  ‘ Old  Temple,’  with  the  two  sacred 
‘tokens’  beside  it.  But  Athena  was  to  move  from  the  ‘house  of  Erechtheus’  into  a new  and 
splendid  abode  : even  the  Parthenon  of  Themistokles  had  destined  a cella  of  a hundred  feet  to 
her  sole  use.  This  arrangement  corresponded  to  the  superior  importance  which  Athena  already  at 
that  time  enjoyed  in  comparison  with  her  old  companion  in  the  temple,  Poseidon-Erechtheus. 
Without  doubt  the  Hekatompedos  Neos  of  Perikles,  just  like  that  begun  in  the  time  of  Themistokles, 
was  intended  to  supersede  completely  the  cella  of  Athena  in  the  1 Old  Temple.’  But  it  follows  from 
this  that  it  was  intended  to  bring  into  the  new  temple  the  ancient  and  highly  revered  image  of  Athena , 
with  which  the  most  important  ceremonial  rites  were  inseparably  co7inected. 

The  erection  of  the  magnificent  new  statue  by  Pheidias  in  no  way  tells  against  this  conclusion. 
It  was  quite  usual  to  display  the  old  sacred  images  beside  the  more  splendid  new  ones.  This  was 
done,  as  we  know  from  inscriptions,  in  the  Brauronion  on  the  Akropolis  ;3  also,  as  Pausanias 
testifies,  in  the  Heraion  near  Argos,  and  in  other  places.4  It  is  known  that  the  statue  by  Pheidias 

the  ancient  explanation  of  the  word  given  by  the  Scholiasts.  They  consistently  regard  cnurdoSo/uos  as  an  inde- 
pendent building  behind  the  temple.  In  the  period  before  Perikles,  likewise,  the  treasury  was  separate  from  the 
temple,  as  we  remarked  supra , p.  425. 

1 The  other  reasons  adduced  by  Dorpfeld  for  his  hypothesis  will  bear  examination  even  less  than  this  one.  It 
was  attractive,  but  wholly  erroneous,  to  connect  together  the  divisions  in  the  management  of  the  treasure  in  the 
Opisthodomos  as  established  by  the  decree  of  435 — 434,  and  the  division  into  chambers  in  the  ‘ Old  Temple,’  which 
had  existed  long  before  that  time.  The  inscription  rather  points  to  a place  common  to  the  two  boards  without 
any  division  as  far  as  building  was  concerned.  The  inferences  reached  by  Dorpfeld  from  his  theory  are  wholly 
impossible.  The  old  temple  of  Polias  containing  the  lamp — the  only  temple  named  by  Strabo  besides  the 
Parthenon  as  standing  in  the  Upov  of  Athena  on  the  Citadel — is  identified  with  the  Erechtheion,  and  with  no 
other  place,  by  the  inscription  relative  to  the  building,  which  assigns  the  old  image  of  Polias  to  the  Erechtheion. 
Yet  Dorpfeld  identifies  it  with  his  ‘ Old  Temple,’  while  on  his  theory  the  east  cella  of  the  Erechtheion  must 
have  been  absolutely  useless  and  empty. 

2 Even  the  Hekatompedos  Neos  itself,  the  cella  of  Athena,  was  used  in  the  same  way,  with  this  distinction, 
however,  that,  being  the  principal  cella,  only  those  utensils  and  votive  gifts  which  were  more  pleasing  to  the  eye 
were  stored  in  it,  just  as  in  the  Pronaos,  which  was  wholly  open  to  view  from  outside,  there  were  displayed  a 
multitude  of  handsome  silver  vessels.  These  utensils  were  undoubtedly  brought  over  from  the  ‘Old  Temple’  to 
the  Parthenon  when  the  latter  stood  complete.  The  aKivanai  ircplxpvaoi,  for  instance,  are  no  doubt  to  be  regarded 
as  belonging  to  the  spoil  of  the  Persians.  The  transfer  seems  not  to  have  been  completed  till  the  first  year  of  which 
the  accounts  were  recorded  ; for  the  large  number  of  inlreia  which  came  into  the  Parthenon  in  the  first  year 
(C.  I.  A.  i.  x 6 1 ),  forming  a contrast  to  the  very  small  subsequent  additions,  are  not  likely  to  have  been  new 
acquisitions,  but  had  merely  been  brought  over  ; and  in  fact  there  are  even  fragments  among  them,  such  as  feet  of 
couches.  We  must,  indeed,  suppose  that  all  objects  of  value  were  at  that  time  transferred  from  the  ‘Old  Temple  ’ 
to  the  new  one  ; otherwise  the  records  which  give  three  headings,  Pronaos,  Hekatompedos  Neos,  and  Parthenon, 
would  necessarily  have  a fourth  also,  the  ‘ Old  Temple.’  But  it  is  not  till  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  that  lists 
appear  of  valuables  stored  in  an  apxa'ios  ve<l>s  ( C . LA.  ii.  733,  735)  ; this  is  to  be  understood  as  meaning  the 
Erechtheion.  The  extant  records  surely  represent  the  carrying  out  of  the  commission  given  by  the  people  to  the 
treasurers  of  Athena  in  the  decree  ( C . I.  A.  i.  32)  to  make  an  inventory  of  all  Upa  xpv/uara  composed  of  the 
precious  metals.  Now  if  any  of  these  had  remained  in  the  ‘Old  Temple,’  they  must  have  been  entered  in  the 
lists.  The  o/f/Va8ias,  the  0a>paf,  and  the  a.Kiva.Kt]s,  which  Pausanias  saw  in  Athena’s  cella  in  the  Erechtheion, 
were  at  that  time  in  the  Parthenon,  where  they  must  be  included  under  the  various  headings  of  the  inventory 
among  the  aiavdicai  diipaKes  and  oK\adlai.  The  a/ard/njs  of  Mardonios  had  been,  according  to  the  accusation 
brought  by  Demosthenes  in  Timokr.  129,  abstracted  by  Glauketes  ; but  it  must  have  been  discovered  again. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Sirppos  of  Xerxes.  That  the  latter  was  in  the  ‘ Parthenon  ’ is  expressly  stated 
(Harpokr.  apyuponovs  S'uppos  ; Michaelis,  Der  Parth.  291,  was  wrong  in  trying  to  remove  the  Parthenon  by  conjec- 
tural emendation) ; Kohler  recognizes  it  in  an  official  list  dating  from  soon  after  01.  95,  2 (C.  I.  A.  ii.  646) ; it 
is  there  entered  as  (5i cppos)  dpyvptarovs  els.  No  doubt  it  was  not  till  late  times  that  one  of  the  o/rAaSi'ai,  preserved 
down  to  the  days  of  Pausanias,  was  regarded  as  a work  of  Daidalos. 

3 In  the  Brauronion  we  know  that  there  were  at  least  two  images — that  by  Praxiteles,  and  that  which  the 
inscriptions  call  rb  eSos  r b a pxaiov.  Cf.  recently  Robert,  Arch.  Mdrchen , 150  sqq. 

4 Paus.  ii.  17,  5.  Here,  in  the  Heraion  near  Argos,  there  were  three  images  of  Hera  ; the  oldest  coming 
from  Tiryns,  an  old  one  on  a pillar,  and  lastly  the  magnificent  statue  by  Polykleitos.  Other  instances  are  given 
by  Petersen,  Phidias , p.  87  sqq. — There  is  a special  interest  in  the  inscription  of  the  Dionysiastai  of  the  Peiraieus 
(Ath.  Mitth.  ix.  p.  290)  ; this  tells  us  (line  17)  how  the  priest  dedicated  Kara,  pavreiav,  a new  cultus-image,  to  the 
god,  in  addition  to  the  older  one  (irpocriSpiKTaTo). 


THE  EAST  FRIEZE 


427 


was  not  originally  called  ‘Parthenos’  at  all,  but  was  just  as  much  ‘Polias’  as  was  the  old  image. 
The  former  was  ‘the  golden  image,’  ‘the  great  image,’  the  latter  ‘the  ancient  image,’  but  both 
served  for  the  same  worship.  The  statue  by  Pheidias  with  Nike  in  her  hand  was  present  to  the 
mind  of  Aristophanes  when  he  wrote  {Knights,  581)  : & 7 roXioG^c  ITaAAa'y...8c0p'  dc/uKofi  Aa/3ofia-a  tt]v 
. .17 pert fjav  ^vvepybv  N t/cijv,  and  the  statue  of  Athena  Polias  at  Priene  was  a tolerably  close  copy  of 
the  Pheidian  Parthenos.1  But  even  later,  when  it  was  customary  to  distinguish  ‘Polias’  and 
‘ Parthenos  ’ on  the  Citadel,  the  single  worship  proclaimed  that  they  were  but  a single  goddess  ; there 
was  never  a separate  worship  of  the  Parthenos.2 

But  there  is  a stronger  proof,  the  strongest  of  all,  to  show  that  when  the  Parthenon  was  built  it 
was  really  intended  to  transfer  the  old  image,  and  the  worship  connected  with  it,  and  therefore  com- 
pletely to  supersede  the  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ as  far  as  Athena  was  concerned.  This  proof  is  given  by  the 
sculptured  frieze  of  the  temple. 

In  the  middle  of  the  east  side  of  this  frieze  is  represented  the  delivery  of  the  Peplos,  a fact  that 
should  never  have  been  disputed  : the  doubts  which  have  been  raised,  and  the  new  interpretations 
which  have  been  attempted,3  serve  only  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  the  old  view.  The  group  forms 
the  centre  of  the  whole  frieze,  above  the  midmost  intercolumniation  and  over  the  door  through  which 
the  glance  fell  upon  the  glorious  statue  within  the  temple  ; it  stands  where  an  indication  of  the  end 
and  aim  of  the  whole  procession  was  necessarily  expected  ; it  is  simply  inconceivable  that  in  such  a 
position  nothing  more  should  be  represented  than  the  quite  uninteresting  scene  of  a priest’s 
robing.  It  has  been  objected  that  no  one  is  paying  any  attention  to  what  is  going  on  in  the  centre. 
The  answer  to  this  is  that  the  scene  is  clearly  conceived  as  in  the  interior  of  the  temple.  The  pro- 
cession has  come  up  outside  ; it  cannot  see  anything  of  the  proceedings  within.  Then  some  have 
held  that  the  action  is  not  that  of  handing  over.  And  yet  it  is  represented  in  the  most  natural 
and  lifelike  way  : we  see  how  the  man  has  lifted  the  heavy  piece  of  stuff  with  both  hands  to 
bring  it  near  his  face  and  examine  it  critically  ; the  attitude  of  his  right  hand,  too,  is  just  that  of 
feeling  a piece  of  stuff  with  a view  to  testing  it.  This  great  piece  of  heavy  stuff  carefully  arranged 
in  numerous  folds 4 can  be  nothing  but  the  great  embroidered  Peplos,  which  the  Panathenaic 
procession  has  brought  up,  and  which  this  priestly  personage  is  now  receiving. 

Now  the  Peplos  was  at  all  times  destined  for  the  old  image,  and  for  none  other.  The  ancient 
ceremonial  usages  of  dressing  and  undressing,  of  cleaning  and  washing  image  and  raiment,  were 
inseparably  associated  with  the  ancient  idol,  the  apgaiov  edos.  The  contradiction  between  this  fact 
and  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  Petersen  attempted  to  remove  by  supposing  the  procession  to  have 
brought  the  Peplos  first  to  the  Parthenon  and  then  to  the  Old  Temple.5  In  this  he  rightly  recognizes 
that  the  frieze  necessarily  implies  the  conception  of  the  bringing  of  the  Peplos  to  the  Parthenon. 
The  frieze,  however,  can  attest  only  the  intention  of  the  founder  of  the  temple,  and  not  what  actually 
took  place.  The  delivery  of  the  Peplos  is  represented  on  the  frieze  of  the  new  temple,  and  is  clearly 
represented  as  going  on  within  that  temple  ; this  proves  that  the  founder  intended  to  transfer  to  the 


1 The  statue  of  the  Polias  of  Priene  is  to  be  seen  on  the  coins  of  Imperial  times  (Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Ionia,  PI. 
24,  13).  Even  the  pillar  supporting  the  right  hand  with  the  figure  of  Nike  is  copied.  It  confirms  the  accuracy  of 
the  statuette  at  Athens. 

- This  fact,  correct  in  itself,  was  used  by  Botticher,  as  is  well  known,  as  a basis  for  his  perverse  hypothesis 
that  the  Parthenon  was  intended  for  profane  purposes  in  connexion  with  the  ‘Agones.’ 

3 Friederichs,  Brunn,  Flasch,  Wolters ; cf.  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  pp.  277,  279  seq.  Michaelis’s 
theory  {Festschrift  fiir  Overbeck , p.  178)  that  the  garment  worn  by  the  boy  belongs  to  the  priest  who  has  given  it 
into  his  charge  is  not  tenable  ; the  cloak  indubitably  belongs  to  the  boy,  for  he  has  distinctly  put.  it  on,  arranging 
it  so  that  it  passes  from  the  left  shoulder  under  the  right  arm,  and  is  drawn  up  in  front  with  a piece  falling  over  ; 
moreover,  he  is  squeezing  it  against  his  side  with  his  left  elbow.  The  supposed  analogies  pointed  to  by  Michaelis 
are  absolutely  different  cases,  where  the  boy  has  merely  thrown  the  garment  not  belonging  to  him  over  his 
shoulder.  [Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  has  lately  {Class.  Rev.  1894,  p.  225  seq.)  made  still  another  suggestion  con- 
cerning the  large  piece  of  cloth  held  by  the  priest  and  the  boy — namely,  that  it  is  the  old  Peplos,  which, 
previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  procession,  the  priest  has  taken  off  the  statue,  and  with  the  help  of  the  boy  :s  folding 
up  to  lay  aside.  Mr.  Hill  proposes  to  account  in  this  manner  for  the  fact  that  the  gods  are  taking  absolutely 
no  interest  in  the  proceeding,  and  that,  moreover,  the  garment  is,  as  he  thinks,  being  ‘ folded  up,  not 
unfolded.’ — E.  S.] 

4 That  it  is  far  too  large  and  too  regularly  folded  to  be  a cloak  for  the  man  has  been  admitted  even  by 
Wolters,  loc.  cit. 

5 Petersen,  Kunst  d.  Pheidias,  pp.  35  seq.,  303  seq.  The  passage  of  Lactantius  adduced  by  Petersen  as  an  addi- 
tional testimony  to  the  bringing  of  the  Peplos  into  theParthenon  (Dorpfeld  repeats  it,  Ath.  Mittli.  xii.  200)  of  course 
proves  nothing  at  all  ; it  is  manifestly  no  more  than  a general  phrase,  with  the  names  of  one  or  two  well-known 
artists.  If  we  were  to  understand  it  literally,  we  should  have  to  infer  also  the  existence  of  a gold  and  ivory 
statue  by  Kuphranor  to  which  a Peplos  was  offered  ; for  such  a statue  we  have  no  other  evidence.  The  size  of  the 
Peplos  as  represented  in  the  frieze  would  very  well  suit  an  image  of  a little  more  than  life-size,  such  as  the  old  idol 
probably  was,  but  would  be  too  small  for  the  colossal  statue  of  Pheidias, 


428 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


new  temple  the  ancient  image,  to  which  alone  the  Peplos  pertained.  We  therefore  reach  the  same 
conclusion  at  which  we  have  already  arrived  by  a different  path. 

The  ancient  image  did  not,  however,  go  to  the  Parthenon.  The  plans  of  Perikles  were  crossed,  and 
that  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  dedication  of  the  new  temple,  when  the  ancient  idol  was  to  be  moved, 
it  was  not  moved,  and  this  was  evidently  a success  achieved  by  the  opposition  party,  which  from 
the  first  had  combated  the  whole  project  of  the  magnificent  new  building,  and  which  had  kept 
the  worship  of  Erechtheus  in  its  old  seat,  just  as  it  now  prevented  the  transference  of  Athena’s 
image.  Now,  as  we  know  that  the  Parthenon  was  still  being  worked  at  in  434,  and  that  accordingly 
it  had  not  yet  been  absolutely  completed,  this  victory  of  the  conservative  opposition  belongs 
to  that  period  preceding  the  war  in  which  the  position  of  Perikles  had  already  been  shaken  as  a 
whole,  and  in  which  his  adversaries  ventured  to  bring  accusations  against  persons  connected  with 
him.  The  charge  of  outraging  religious  obligations  was  the  most  convenient  weapon  in  the  hand  of 
his  enemies.  It  enabled  them  to  effect  considerable  curtailments  in  the  magnificent  project  for  the 
Propylaia  ; and  it  enabled  them  also  to  prevent  the  Parthenon  from  becoming  what  it  was  to  have 
been,  and  superseding  entirely  the  cella  of  Athena  in  the  ‘ Old  Temple.’ 

But  before  we  proceed  further  we  must  study  somewhat  more  in  detail  the  centre  of  the  frieze  of 
the  Parthenon.  It  has  been  said  that  so  long  as  no  special  significance  has  been  shown  to  attach 
to  the  scene  on  the  left,  which  represents  a priestess  receiving  seats,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
scene  on  the  right  either,  the  delivery  of  the  piece  of  stuff,  should  have  any  such  special  meaning. 
And  the  contention  is  just.  The  attempts  hitherto  made,  however,  to  explain  the  scene  with 
the  priestess  must  be  regarded  as  quite  unsatisfactory.  First  we  must  be  sure  of  what  is  actually 
happening  : a woman,  who  clearly  can  be  no  other  than  Athena’s  priestess,  is  in  the  act  of  taking 
from  a girl  the  cushioned  seat  which  she  carries  on  her  head.  A second  girl  is  approaching  with  a 
similar  seat  on  her  head,  and  an  unrecognizable  object  on  her  arm  j1  she  is  likewise  advancing  towards 
the  priestess,  but  is  half  turning  back,  as  though  to  look  at  another  who  is  following  her.  The  artist 
clearly  meant  to  indicate  by  this  action  that  more  girls  carrying  seats  in  the  same  way  are  to  be 
imagined  as  following  after  those  whom  we  see  ; since  if  the  business  of  bringing  chairs  was  to  have 
been  represented  as  ending  with  the  second  girl,  she  would  certainly  have  been  made  to  look  towards 
the  centre.  The  seats  are  of  the  same  shape  as  those  on  which  the  gods  are  sitting  : they  are  St  (ppoi 
— Zeus  only  has  a Opovos  ; a seat-cushion  occurs,  too,  on  one  of  the  seats  of  the  gods  (that  of  the 
second  god  from  the  left,  Dionysos).2  The  bringing  of  seats  upon  the  head  in  the  way  here  repre- 
sented was  customary  when  guests  arrived.3  When  Demos  is  feasted  in  the  Knights  of  Aristophanes 
(1164  sqq.),  the  8l(ppos  is  the  first  thing  brought,  then  follows  the  rpane^a  with  the  meal.  The  girls  in 
the  frieze  are  seat-bearers,  8uf)po(p6poi.  Now  we  know  that  maidens  of  this  kind  took  part  in 
religious  processions  at  Athens,  with  the  KavrjcpopoiP  There  is  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  two  maidens  in 
the  frieze  are  to  be  regarded  as  representatives  of  the  bicppocjsopoi  who  formed  part  of  the  Panathenaic 
procession.5  These  girls,  like  the  Kanephoroi,  no  doubt  belonged  to  the  most  distinguished  families 
of  Athens  ; for  that  they  were  of  the  class  of  the  Metoikoi  is  a modern  fable,  and  that  they  carried 
the  seats  after  the  Kanephoroi  for  their  convenience,  an  ancient  one.0  The  frieze  informs  us  that  the 

1 This  is  most  probably  a stool,  as  Petersen  conjectures  ( Phidias , p.  247).  Cf.  the  InronbSiov  in  the  inventory 
of  the  Parthenon,  C.  I.  A.  ii.  646. 

2 Cf.  infra,  p.  431  ; Back,  in  Fleckeise/is  Jahrb.  1887,  434. 

3 Cf.  the  well-known  vase  by  Exekias,  Wiener  Vorlegebl.  1888,  Taf.  6,  1,  and  a vase  of  the  fine  style  in 
the  British  Museum.  The  slave  carrying  a chair  in  the  latter  is  engraved  in  the  Catalogue  of  Sculpture,  vol.  i. 
(1892),  p.  157.  Cf.  also  Welcker,  Alte  Denkm.  v.  Taf.  19,  where  two  chairs  are  being  carried,  though  not  upon 
the  head  ; also  Millingen,  Div.  Coll.  7 ( = Wiener  Vorlegebl.  ii.  8),  the  Welcoming  of  Jason.  Finally  a newly 
acquired  white  lekythos  from  Athens  in  Berlin,  representing  a female  slave,  who  at  the  bidding  of  her  mistress 
carries  a stool  on  her  head  in  the  fashion  of  the  Parthenon  maidens  ; her  type  of  face  marks  her  as  a ‘ barbarian  ’ ; 
style  of  the  Pheidian  period. 

4 That  they  walked  near  the  Kanephoroi  is  clear  from  Aristoph.  Birds,  1549  sqq.,  and  the  passage  of  Hermippos 
quoted  in  the  Scholia  there.  The  Scholiasts  wrongly  inferred  that  they  followed  behind  the  Kanephoroi  ; we  know 
this  (from  Aristophanes)  only  with  regard  to  the  bearers  of  sunshades.  That  the  Diphrophoroi  walked  in  the 
Panathenaic  procession  is  nowhere  expressly  stated,  but  is  certainly  to  be  assumed,  since  we  know  that  the 
Kanephoroi  did  so. 

5 The  old  interpretation,  that  they  are  Errhephoroi,  should  not  have  been  taken  up  again  by  Petersen,  when 
the  seats  had  once  been  recognized  as  such.  The  Attic,  fifth-century,  terra-cotta,  /.  H.  S.  xi.  p.  144,  representing  a 
girl  carrying  a seat  with  a cushion,  just  like  the  maidens  of  the  frieze,  is  of  course  a Suppotpopos.  Hydrophoroi 
also  occur  not  unfrequently  among  terra-cottas.  Waldstein  misunderstands  the  figure,  and  suggests  Kosmo  and 
Trapezo,  who  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  in  this  connexion,  but  to  whom  Miss  J.  E.  Harrison  (Class.  Rev.  iii. 
378),  following  older  precedent  (Michaelis,  p.  264),  had  lately  called  attention. 

8 It  arose  from  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  passage  of  Aristophanes  ; the  seat-bearers  and  the  bearers 
of  sunshades  have  been  confused  together,  and  thus  the  former  made  to  carry  their  seats  after  the  Kanephoroi. 
Cf.  Michaelis,  Parth.  pp.  213,  255  ; Thumser,  Staatsalterth.  p.  424.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  stated  with  regard 
to  the  bearers  of  sunshades  only  that  they  belonged  to  the  class  of  Metoikoi.  They  did  really  walk  behind  the 


BANQUET  OF  THE  GODS 


429 


Diphrophoroi  walked  at  the  head  of  the  procession,  entered  the  temple,  and  there  gave  up  their 
burden  before  the  priestess.  The  Kanephoroi,  who  in  the  frieze  form  the  head  of  the  procession  on  the 
right,1  remain  outside  ; their  load  is  taken  from  them  there  by  some  of  the  officials.  The  other  classes 
of  those  that  take  part  in  the  procession  are  indicated  each  by  only  a few  representatives,  and  so 
it  is  likewise  with  the  Kanephoroi  and  Diphrophoroi.  Regarding  the  matter  in  this  way,  we  reach  a 
fresh  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  the  delivery  of  the  Peplos  is  represented  in  the  frieze  : since  if,  as 
we  have  seen  to  be  the  case,  the  seats  have  been  brought  by  the  procession,  this  will  be  true  also  of 
the  robe  represented  in  the  corresponding  scene  to  the  right  ; therefore  it  must  be  the  Peplos,  the 
only  robe  that  can  have  come  with  the  procession. 

But  why  are  the  Diphrophoroi  received  in  the  temple  and  by  the  priestess  in  person,  and  how 
can  this  transaction  stand  on  a level  with  the  delivery  of  the  Peplos  ? Michaelis,  who  has  rightly 
perceived  that  the  Diphrophoroi  are  represented,2  is  not  able  to  solve  this  question.  He  speaks  of  the 
seats  merely  as  ‘ furniture  for  the  festival,’  and  can  make  no  statement  as  to  their  purpose.3  In  the 
case  of  the  other  nop-nfia—  the  sacrificial  baskets,  the  paterae,  jugs,  hydriai,  censers,  and  the  like — 
the  intention  is  immediately  clear  : they  are  used  in  the  act  of  sacrificing.  But  what  about  the 
seats  ? I do  not  know  that  at  any  ancient  sacrifice  there  were  persons  participating  who  sat  down. 
That  the  theory  which  connected  the  seats  with  the  Kanephoroi  rested  merely  on  a foolish  blunder 
we  have  remarked  above. 

A number  of  seats  and  armchairs  are,  as  is  well  known,  entered  in  the  inventories  of  the 
Parthenon  among  the  votive  offerings  and  festival  furniture.  In  other  temples  also  we  find  the 

like  as  votive  gifts  ; thus  at  Olympia  there  is  a throne  presented  by  a Tyrrhenian  king,  at  Delphi  one 
dedicated  by  Midas  and  one  by  Pindar.4  An  armchair  is  named  in  an  inscription  as  being  in  the 
temple  of  Artemis  at  Delos,5  another  as  being  in  the  Asklepieion  at  Athens.6  Marble  representations 
of  thrones  dedicated  to  Nemesis,  to  Themis,  and  to  Dionysos  were  discovered  at  Rhamnus.7  That 
such  thrones  were  meant  for  the  gods  was  in  later  times  sometimes  made  clear  by  placing  their 
attributes  upon  them.8  Again,  as  early  as  the  Mykenaian  period,  small  representations  of  armchairs 
in  terra-cotta  were  dedicated  to  divinities.9  The  great  throne  of  Apollo  at  Amyklai  is  interesting 
as  having  comprised  several  xadcbpai  : clearly  these  seats  were  intended  for  the  divine  and 

heroic  guests  of  Apollo,  whom  he  was  to  receive  on  days  of  festival.  An  inscription  from  Chios 
dedicates  rr)v  arputT^v  /cat  tcis  Kadedpas  Mr/rpi  ;10  thus  even  several  Ka6e8pai  are  appropriated  to  the 
mother  of  the  gods.  The  connexion  in  which  these  appear  here  is  significant  : o-rpamij  is 

indeed  a word  that  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  but  it  must  evidently  mean  some  kind  of  couch.11 
Such  pieces  of  furniture,  under  the  names  koItti,  kXlvti,  K'Kiap.os,  we  find  not  unfrequently  kept  in  the 
temples  like  the  seats  ; quite  a number  are  entered  in  the  inventories  of  the  Parthenon,  others 
are  mentioned  in  the  Heraion  near  Argos,  in  the  Heraion  at  Olympia  and  the  one  near  Plataia, 
and  also  in  the  temple  of  Athena  at  Tegea.12  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  their  significance  : like 
the  tables,  the  rpane^ai,  they  have  reference  to  a custom  widely  prevalent  at  festivals  of  the  gods, 
that  of  the  arp&ais  rps  /cal  Kocrprjais  rf/s  rpaTre^rjs.  The  deity  is  feasted,  and  not  he  alone, 

but  guests  also  are  invited  to  his  festival  from  the  circle  of  gods  and  heroes.  This  was  a widely 

Kanephoroi  ; no  doubt  their  sunshades  were  in  reality  only  ceremonial  objects  (cf.  the  Skirophoria),  but  it  may 
have  been  supposed  even  in  early  times  that  they  were  connected  with  the  distinguished  maidens,  the  Kanephoroi, 
behind  whom  they  were  carried.  Von  Wilamowitz  (Hermes,  xxii.  220)  is  certainly  right  in  denying  that  the 
connexion  existed,  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  was  not  supposed  to  exist  : he  too  makes  the  mistake 
of  saying  that  the  girls  carrying  seats  and  sunshades  were  of  the  class  of  Metoikoi. 

1 Petersen  (Phidias,  pp.  291,  315)  conjectures,  perhaps  rightly,  that  the  girls  at  the  head  of  the  procession  to 
the  left  (figs.  16,  17)  were  also  marked  as  Kanephoroi  by  painted  baskets. 

2 Parthenon,  p.  256  seq. 

3 Recently  Michaelis  (in  the  Festschrift  fiir  Overbeck,  1893)  has  expressed  the  view  that  the  seats  were 
intended  for  the  I’eplos.  I hardly  think  this  will  prove  convincing. 

4 Pans.  v.  12,  5 ; Herod,  i.  14;  Pans.  x.  25,  5.  That  Pindar  sat  upon  the  seat  was  no  doubt  a fable  of 
later  times,  based  upon  the  dedicatory  inscription,  which  gave  Pindar’s  name. 

5 Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  1882,  128.  6 C.  I.  A.  ii.  766,  1.  8. 

7 C.  I.  A.  ii.  1370,  1571,  1 1 9 1 ( Ath . Mittli.  iv.  284). 

8 Cf.  the  throne  of  Apollo,  Mon.  d.  dust.  v.  28  ; Annali,  1851,  103  (Brunn)  ; that  of  Poseidon  in  the 
relief,  Friederichs-Wolters,  Gibsabg.  1905. 

9 Some  were  found  at  Mykenai  (noted  by  me,  1878)  and  at  Tiryns  (Schliemann,  Tiryns,  PI.  23  C.) ; a good 
specimen  is  at  Berlin  (T.C.  Inv.  7812  ; cf.  Samm.  Sabouroff,  on  PI.  144,  3). 

10  B.  C.  H.  iii.  p.  324,  No.  11,  perhaps  of  the  second  century  B.C. 

11  Haussoullier  ( loc . cit.)  conjectures  ‘une  etoffe,  un  tapis.’ 

12  Pans.  ii.  17,  3 : ic\lvr)  Trjs  "Hpas,  in  the  Pronaos,  v.  20,  r.  Thuc.  iii.  68.  Pans.  viii.  47,  2 : K\ivt] 
Upa  TTjs  ’AO-qvas.  A representation  in  stone  of  a couch  dedicated  to  Asklepios  at  Epidauros : ’£<prip. 
apx-  1883,  p.  27,  3.  On  the  Akropolis  is  a marble  couch  with  a pillow,  dedicated  to  Dione,  and  belonging 
to  the  fourth  century  (the  inscription  AeAnW  a pyaioA.  1890,  p.  145,  3). 


430 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


spread  Greek  conception,  which  found  its  most  pregnant  expression  in  the  Oeo^evia.1  It  was  for 
this  that  the  seats  and  couches  of  the  temple  were  used  : the  numina  of  the  gods  were  to  take  their 
places  upon  them.  It  is  a quite  erroneous  though  common  view  to  regard  these  dedicated  seats, 
the  property  of  the  gods,  as  intended  for  the  staff  of  priests.2 

The  seats  accord  with  the  more  ancient  custom  of  not  reclining  at  meals  : thus  they  are  found 
even  in  the  stratum  of  Mykenaian  civilization.  They  arise  from  the  conception  that  is  seen  in  the 
funeral  custom  practised  in  one  part  of  Etruria.  There  an  armchair  is  placed  in  the  grave,  with  the 
cinerary  urn  resting  upon  it,  and  a table  set  in  front  for  food.3  In  the  one  case  the  spirit  of  the  dead 
man,  in  the  other  that  of  the  god,  is  to  take  his  place  on  the  seat  made  ready  for  him.  At  least  for 
the  female  deities,  who  never  used  to  recline,  the  seats  must  have  been  always  kept.4 * * 

We  have  express  testimony  that  in  the  worship  of  Athena  on  the  Akropolis  it  was  usual  to  feast 
the  goddess  in  this  fashion  at  festivals  : the  priestess  of  Polias  is  praised  on  account  of  the  Koa^aLs 
rijs  Tpa-rrefrisf  and  her  two  assistants  in  this  duty  are  called  Kocrpoo  and  Tpcme(io.0  Moreover,  there  is 
literary  evidence  for  the  custom  of  preparing  at  the  Panathenaia  a small  ‘Kline’  composed  of 
flowers  ; 7 this  no  doubt  was  done  in  private  houses,  while  in  the  temple  there  was  held  upon  a 
grander  scale  a symbolic  feast  of  the  goddess  with  her  divine  guests.  For  this  were  used  the  couches 
and  seats  belonging  to  the  temple.  It  is  hardly  a mere  coincidence  that  from  01.  86,  3 onward  (in 
that  year  they  had  probably  been  brought  from  the  ‘ Old  Temple’)  there  was  kept  in  the  Parthenon  a 
set  of  twelve  armchairs.8  They  were  clearly  intended  for  a reunion  of  twelve  gods  ; besides  these  the 
temple  possessed  also  dicjspm  and  o/rXufiiai,  and  no  less  than  eighteen  uXivcu. 

If  we  now  glance  at  the  frieze,  the  true  meaning  of  the  whole  central  scene  becomes  at  once  clear  to 
us.  As  in  ordinary  life  on  the  arrival  of  guests,  so  here  seats  are  being  brought  in,  destined  in  this 
case  for  the  divine  guests  expected  at  the  feast.  They  are  being  received  by  the  priestess  of  Polias, 
to  whom  belonged  the  management  of  the  symbolic  banquet. 

And  what  faith  conceived  as  the  invisible  sequel  the  artist  has  ventured  to  set  forth  as  actually 
taking  place.  On  either  side  the  gods  have  already  arrived,  a company  of  twelve,  and  they  have 
taken  their  places  on  the  seats  made  ready  for  them  in  the  temple.  Thence  they  look  on  at  the 
festival.  Thus  for  the  first  time  we  really  understand  the  presence  of  the  gods  in  the  frieze  ; it  arises 
from  no  fancy  of  the  artist,  however  beautiful,  from  no  general  and  ideal  conception  of  the  nearness 
of  divine  beings,  but  from  a cpiite  positive  belief  and  a ceremonial  rite  actually  practised.9 

We  must  not  suppose  that  the  choice  of  the  deities  either  was  left  to  the  pleasure  of  the  artist. 
This  group  of  twelve  Olympian  gods  was  really  invited  to  be  the  guests  at  the  festival.  The 
institution  probably  dales  from  the  regulation  of  the  greater  Panathenaia  by  Peisistratos.  The  gods 
are  the  Sc oSocn  6eoi  worshipped  in  the  state  religion  of  Attica,10  the  same  to  whom  was  consecrated 
the  altar  erected  on  the  market-place  by  the  younger  Peisistratos.  This  gives  us  the  clue  for 
recovering  the  names  of  the  individual  gods  on  the  frieze.  The  relief  upon  an  altar  from  the  inner 
Kerameikos  at  Athens  makes  known  to  us  with  complete  certainty  at  least  six  members  of  the  Attic 


1 Cf.  Deneken,  Dc  Theoxeniis  (Bert.  Dissert.  1SS1 ).  A usage  similar  to  the  Theoxenia  may  well  be  supposed 
at  the  Panathenaia,  even  if  the  same  name  was  not  used  in  this  case. 

2 The  priests  also  no  doubt  had  their  seats,  from  which  they  could  look  on  at  the  festive  proceedings  : a 
fragment  of  a seat,  found  near  the  Erechtheion, bears  the  inscription  i lepews  Bobrov  (C.  I.  A.  ii.  1656.  Dittenberger 
is  wrong,  as  Kohler  has  pointed  out,  in  assuming  that  the  fragment  is  out  of  place  and  comes  from  the  theatre). 
But  these  seats  belonging  to  the  priests  were  quite  distinct  from  those  of  the  deities,  who  are  in  fact  also  named  as 
owners  in  the  inscriptions  on  their  own  seats. 

3 One  set  of  sepulchral  furniture  of  this  kind  found  in  a tomb  at  Chiusi  is  at  Berlin,  others  at  Florence. 
One  is  published  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1S78,  I’l.  Q. 

4 An  interesting  Attic  vase  of  the  late  black-figured  style  at  Naples  (Heydemann,  3358  j Ann.  d.  Inst.  1865, 

PI.  F. ; Schreiber,  Kulturhist.  Bilderatlas,  PL  20,  3 , Wiener  Vorlegebl.  Ser.  C.  8,  2)  represents  two  female 
deities  seated  on  Slcppoi  ; in  front  of  them  is  a small  table  for  food,  and  a man  praying  and  pouring  a libation  ; 
there  is  also  a small  aedicula,  in  which  we  must  conceive  the  images  of  the  goddesses  to  be  ; the  table,  and  the 
seats,  however,  have  been  set  out  for  the  goddesses  themselves,  and  they  have  really  come  and  taken  their  places. 
These  deities  are  certainly  Demeter  and  Kore  (as  has  been  already  conjectured  by  Stephani,  Compte  Rendu,  1868, 
p.  160)  ; the  man’s  name  is  Mystes  (pvara  no  doubt  is  vocative).  The  interpretations  given  by  Liibbert  and 
Schreiber  are  wrong.  0 C.  I.  A.  11.  374- 

li  With  regard  to  them  see  Top  (Ter,  Attische  Geneal.  p.  122,  as  a recent  authority. 

■ Ilesychios,  s.  v.  -n-Aaids. 

8 C.  I.  A.  i.  161  sqq.  After  the  war  only  six  are  left  (C.  I.  A.  ii.  646,  16) ; probably  the  number  was  then 
made  up  with  the  plain  seats. 

9 An  excellent  corroboration  of  my  view  is  furnished  by  an  inscription  discovered  at  Magnesia  (cf.  the 
preliminary  report  in  the  Arch.  Anz.  1894,  p.  79).  Here  at  the  great  festival  the  twelve  gods  are  invited,  their 
idols  are  set  up  in  the  Agora,  and  Lectisternia  arranged  before  them.  What  happens  here  is  just  what  we  have 
postulated  at  Athens  : the  twelve  gods  are  invited  and  entertained. 

10  The  evidence  is  given  in  Curtius-Milchhofer,  Sfadtgesch.  p.  ix. 


THE  TWELVE  GODS 


431 

group  of  twelve  gods  among  them  is  Demeter.  The  only  figure  in  the  frieze  which  will  in  every 
point  do  for  Demeter  is  the  one  with  a torch.1 2  If  this  is  Demeter,  then  the  god  opposite  her,  the 
only  one  of  the  company  who  sits  on  a cushion,  must  be  Dionysos.3  The  goddess  between  Aphrodite 
and  Apollo  is  generally  supposed  to  be  Peitho  ; but  she  is  excluded,  if  only  because  she  cannot  be 
reckoned  among  the  twelve  great  gods  of  Olympos.  Rather  the  goddess  must  be  Artemis,  who  is 
as  appropriate  in  this  place  between  her  brother  and  Aphrodite,  a goddess  closely  connected  with 
her,4  as,  on  the  other  side,  Dionysos  is  to  Demeter.  This  company  of  twelve  gods  (on  the  left, 
Hermes,  Dionysos,  Demeter,  Ares,  Hera,  Zeus  ; on  the  right,  Athena,  Hephaistos,  Poseidon,  Apollo, 
Artemis,  Aphrodite)  is  identical  with  the  one  so  widely  prevalent  in  later  times,  except  that  it 
includes  Dionysos  in  place  of  Hestia;  it  is  possible  that  this  deviation  only  occurred  in  the  one 
case  of  the  Panathenaic  festival,  the  cause  being  that  Hestia  was  fast  rooted  lo  her  hearth,  and 
could  not  well  be  invited  as  a guest,  for  that  later  canonical  group  of  gods  was  that  of  Athens  even 
in  early  times.5 

The  Peisistraticl  altar  of  the  Twelve  Gods  marked  Athens,  as  Curtius  says,0  ‘even  then  as  an 
abode  of  guest-frienclship  between  state  and  state,  and  of  peaceful  intercourse  of  nations.’  It  was 
certainly  a genuine  Periklean  conception,  according  well  with  the  idea  of  an  Hellenic  congress 
which  was  to  precede  the  building  of  the  Parthenon,  that  here  on  the  temple  frieze  where  the  festival 
of  Athena  is  represented,  by  far  the  most  prominent  place  was  given — no  doubt  owing  to  an  established 
usage  in  the  rites  of  the  Panathenaia — to  this  group  of  gods,  which  could  claim  a significance  general 
to  the  whole  Hellenic  nation  ; and  that  the  representation  of  that  temple  rite  which  has  reference  to 
the  divine  guests  is  placed  on  a level  with  the  bringing  of  the  Peplos,  the  gift  that  did  honour  to 
Athena.  Of  course,  the  place  in  which  the  gods  are  sitting  is  not  an  ‘ ideal  ’ spot ; 7 the  temple,  the 
Parthenon,  is  intended.  The  men  who  stand  immediately  in  front  of  the  gods  are  conceived  as 
assembled  in  front  of  the  temple  while  the  procession  comes  up.  They  form  a company  of  ten  (four 
to  the  right,  six  to  the  left)  ; 8 9 probably  they  are  the  ten  officials  who  managed  the  property  of  the 
goddess,  the  rapitu  Upibv  xP1UX(*TU,v  TVS  deou,  "'ho  here  are  posted  before  the  temple  intrusted  to 
their  charge.  The  man  in  the  long  chiton  within  who  is  receiving  the  Peplos  is,  however,  certainly 
not  a treasurer,  as  has  been  supposed;1-1  the  priestly  robe  in  itself  proves  this.  Now  the  priest  of 
Erechtheus  will  not  do  either — it  is  hardly  likely  that  he  was  concerned  with  this  particular  offering, 
the  Peplos  of  Athena  ; thus  we  have  to  regard  the  priestly  personage  as  a representative  of  the 
UpoTroLoi,  who,  according  to  a well-known  inscription,10 11  had,  in  fact,  the  whole  management  of  at 
any  rate  the  Lesser  Panathenaia  ;u  among  other  things  they  offered  the  various  sacrifices  to  Athena, 

1 Ath.  Mitth.  iv.  PI.  20,  p.  337  sqq.  (von  Sybel).  The  altar,  judging  by  its  workmanship,  is  to  be  ascribed 
perhaps  to  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century.  Cf.  also  Preller- Robert,  Griech.  Mythol.  i.  no. 

2 Flasch  interprets  it  as  Artemis,  but  for  the  reasons  against  this  cf.  especially  Back,  in  Fleckeisen' s Jalirb. 
1887,  436  seq.  Michaelis  in  Berliner  Philo l . Wochetischr.  1892,  1172. 

3 As  was  supposed  by  Michaelis  and  Petersen,  and  has  lately  been  maintained  by  Back  with  very  good 
arguments,  in  opposition  to  Flasch  [Fleckeisen' s Jahrb.  1887,  433  sqq. ) 

4 Gerhard  also  regarded  her  as  Artemis. — It  is  well  known  that  Artemis  is  found  not  unfrequently  in  the 
fifth  century  wearing  a cap ; cf.  merely  as  an  example  the  Niobid  vase  of  Polygnotan  style,  Mon.  d.  Inst.  xi.  40,  or 
the  somewhat  older  cylix  of  the  severe  period,  Ath.  Mitth.  v.  PI.  10.  Robert  regarded  the  latter  as  representing 
Artemis  Brauronia  (cf.  supra,  p.  102,  note  3)  ; in  any  case  the  figure  follows  as  its  model  an  Attic  cultus-image 
of  an  early  period.  The  vase  of  Elite  drain,  ii.  92  is  near  in  time  to  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon. — The  chiton 
slipping  down  on  the  left  shoulder  is  found  again  in  the  statue  of  Artemis  Brauronia  by  Praxiteles  (cf.  supra , 
p.  323).  Artemis  Brauronia  as  a goddess  nearly  allied  to  Aphrodite,  and  presiding  over  the  sexual  functions 
of  women,  has  clearly  influenced  the  representation  of  Artemis  in  the  frieze. 

5 I recently  had  the  opportunity  in  Copenhagen  of  accurately  examining  the  terra-cotta  fragment  with  the 

Athena  of  the  Parthenon  frieze,  Herr  Sophus  Muller  having  kindly  taken  the  terra-cotta  down  from  the  wall  into 
which  it  had  been  fixed.  I consider  the  fragment  to  be  genuinely  antique  : the  thickness,  the  clay,  the  whole 
appearance  are  exactly  those  of  the  ‘ Campana  ’ reliefs.  In  addition  to  this  the  (very  slight)  traces  of  blue  colour 
on  the  ground,  and,  above  all,  the  genuine  incrustation  on  the  surface,  are  proofs  of  their  authenticity.  The  other 
fragments  noted  by  Waldstein  (Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias,  PI.  ix.  xiii. ) are  therefore  presumably  also  genuine. 
The  agreement  with  the  small  casts  in  Rome,  derived  from  the  old  mould  made  for  Choiseul-Gouffier,  which 
puzzled  Waldstein,  is  to  be  explained  by  reference  to  the  same  original.  The  Roman  terra-cotta  copies,  which 
must  have  been  made  in  Rome  probably  in  the  Augustan  age,  are  evidently  derived  from  casts.  [A  further  frag- 
ment belonging  to  the  same  series,  and  reproducing  figs.  133  and  134  (Mich.)  of  the  north  frieze,  was  recently 
acquired  in  Rome  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Smith.  Rom.  Mitth.  1894,  p.  94;  cf.  Sal.  Reinach  in  Chron.  d’  Orient,  1894, 
p.  17. — E.  S.]  6 Sitzungsber.  d.  Berl.  Akad.  1890,  p.  1154- 

7 As  is  supposed  by  Michaelis,  Parthenon,  p.  22 1 . 

8 Michaelis  thought  that  they  were  rather  the  nine  Archons  ; he  separated  figure  18  from  the  rest.  But  this 
will  not  do  ; 18  and  19  belong  together  as  much  as  20 — 21,  or  22—23  5 they  are  three  groups  of  men  quite 
similar  to  each  other  ; 18  may  also  have  held  a staff.  Cf.  Petersen,  Pheidias,  p.  290,  note  3. 

9 So  Botticher,  and  Michaelis  agrees  with  him,  pp.  221,  257. 

10  C.  I.  A.  ii.  163  ; Michaelis,  Parth.  p.  332  ; Dittenberger,  Sy/l.  380. 

11  According  to  Aristot.  ’A 9.  woA.  54,  the  fifth  Panathenaia  of  every  fourth  year  were  not  managed  by  the 
annual  Hieropoioi;  unfortunately  the  further  details  with  regard  to  the  Panathenaia  are  much  damaged. 


432 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AICROPOLIS 


and  therefore  probably  appeared  in  the  long  chiton,  the  sacrificial  robe  of  priests.  Analogous  to  this 
function  of  receiving  the  Peplos  would  be  the  Eleusinian  ceremony,  at  which  the  Uponoioi  received 
the  grain  offered  by  the  various  states.1 


V.  The  Erechtheion. 

Thus  we  have  in  the  Parthenon,  just  as  in  the  Propylaia,  a lasting  memorial  of  what  Perikles 
desired  but  did  not  wholly  accomplish.  The  old  sacred  image  of  Athena  remained  in  the  ‘ Old 
Temple,’  and  the  Parthenon  was  not,  as  had  been  intended,  the  centre  of  the  worship  of  Athena  on 
the  Citadel,  but  only  an  appendage,  however  magnificent,  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple.’ 

Now  it  was  the  task  incumbent  on  the  opposition  so  to  restore  or  rebuild  the  old  temple  by 
the  sacred  ‘ tokens  ’ that  it  might  be  a fitting  place  for  the  ancient  image.  But  they  could  not  set  to 
work  at  once.  They  had  succeeded  in  cutting  down  the  projected  Propylaia  of  Perikles,  but  not  in 
putting  an  end  to  the  erection  altogether,  and  till  this  was  finished  there  could  be  no  thought  of  anew 
temple.  Then,  before  the  Propylaia  were  yet  completely  finished,  came  the  war,  and  with  it  the 
cessation  of  all  building  on  the  part  of  the  state. 

Not  till  after  the  peace  of  Nikias  could  there  be  any  thought  of  building  new  temples, 
and  it  is  just  this  time  that  Michaelis  has  recently  fixed  upon,  on  strong  grounds,  for  the  beginning 
of  the  Erechtheion.2  He  at  the  same  time  hazards  the  suggestion  that  Alkibiades  had  something 
to  do  with  the  project.  This,  I think,  is  practically  impossible.  The  undertaking  does  not 
in  the  least  accord  with  the  character  of  Alkibiades,  or  his  attitude  in  the  strife  of  parties. 
But  there  is  another  who  probably  has  a right  to  be  named  in  this  connexion — Nikias,  the  foremost 
man,  the  most  highly  respected  in  the  Athens  of  his  day,  the  very  person  who  had  been 
successful  in  negotiating  the  peace.  He  was  the  head  of  the  conservative  party,  and  personally  a 
man  of  strictly  orthodox  belief  and  timid  piety  : r)v  yap  ti  <a'i  ayav  deiavpcp  re  Ka\  to. > tolovtm 
TTpDo-Knptvos  (Thuc.  vii.  50),  in  strong  contrast  to  Perikles,  who  was  SeuriSat/ror/a?  KaOvneprepos  (Plut. 
Per.  6).  Political  and  religious  considerations  alike  must  have  determined  Nikias  to  continue  the 
traditions  of  those  who  opposed  the  building  schemes  of  Perikles.  We  saw  that  the  task  had  fallen 
upon  them  of  providing  a worthy  place  for  the  old  image  more  especially,  and  also  for  the  worship  of 
Erechtheus. 

This  was  done  by  the  building  of  the  Erechtheion.  For  it  follows  necessarily  from  our 
previous  arguments  that  the  Erechtheion  must  be  regarded  as  the  rebuilding  of  the  ‘ Old 
Temple.’  The  latter  was  now  demolished,  with  the  exception  of  the  stylobate,3  which  was  left  as  a 
level  platform.  A part  of  the  peristyle  had  already  been  taken  down  and  used  in  the  building  of  the 
north  wall,  perhaps  as  early  as  the  time  when  the  Parthenon  of  Themistokles  was  in  progress.4  The 
cellas  could  not  be  removed  till  the  Erechtheion  was  erected.  The  new  building  was  placed 
close  beside  the  old,  only  projecting  a little  over  its  stylobate.  Thus  worship  could  go  on 
undisturbed  in  the  old  cellas  until  the  new  were  ready  for  the  transfer.  The  date  of  this  is  not 
quite  certain.  When  the  work  was  taken  up  again  in  409,  the  whole  roof  of  the  cella  of  Athena  was 
still  missing  ; it  was  not  put  on  till  409 — 408.  Possibly  the  ‘ Old  Temple  ’ was  removed  at  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Erechtheion,  though  it  seems  to  me  more  probable  that  this  had  taken  place 
previously.  The  expression  6 vecos  6 ipirokci  Iv  <i>  to  apyaiov  clyaXpa,  by  which  the  building  in- 
scription designates  the  new  structure,  would  be  meaningless  if — not  the  new  temple,  but — the  old, 
closely  adjacent  to  it,  was  the  temple  containing  the  idol.  Further,  the  inscription  proves,  as  is  well 
known,  that  the  porch  of  the  Caryatids  was  the  portion  of  the  building  most  advanced  when  the  works 
were  interrupted  in  413  ; 5 it  alone  was  quite  finished  and  polished  except  in  one  or  two  trifling  details, 
evidently  because  it  was  the  chief  ornament  of  the  building,  and  would  be  the  first  to  strike  visitors 
to  the  Akropolis.  If,  however,  the  high  cella  wall  of  the  old  temple  rose  straight  in  front  of  the 

1 Dittenberger,  Syll.  13.  2 Ath.  Mittk.  xiv.  p.  363. 

3 Dorpfeld  (Ath.  Mitth.  xv.  439)  points  out  the  fact  that  one  stone  of  the  stylobate  is  still  m situ,  and  several 
lie  near  on  the  foundations.  This  is.  of  course,  no  proof  for  Dorpfeld’s  theory  that  the  temple  remained  standing 
throughout  antiquity,  but  only  shows  that  the  stylobate  was  not  demolished  with  the  rest  of  the  edifice  : this  is 
very  intelligible,  since  it  afforded  a fine  level  platform.  We  may  further  quote  the  analogy  of  the  old  Heraion 
near  Argos,  which  was  not  completely  pulled  down,  the  0e/xeAia  being  left  standing  (Paus.  ii.  17,  j). 

4 Dorpfeld  has  been  so  kind  as  to  inform  me  by  letter  that  the  part  of  the  north  wall  which  contains  the 

entablature  of  poros  stone  from  the  old  temple  is  calculated  for  a lower  level  of  the  surface  of  the  Citadel  within 
than  that  which  existed  in  the  time  of  Perikles  ; and  that  when  the  north  wall  was  built  the  numerous  archaic 
statues  came  to  be  buried  in  the  earth  ; this  seems  to  point  to  the  time  of  Themistokles  as  the  most  probable. 
We  must  suppose  that  the  work  of  removing  and  demolishing  the  peristyle  was  then  begun,  and  given  up  at  the 
same  time  that  the  building  of  the  old  Parthenon  was  broken  off.  6 Cf.  Michaelis,  loc.  cit. 


THE  ERECHTHEION 


433 


Caryatids  and  completely  concealed  them,  the  early  termination  of  this  portion  becomes  unintelligible. 
Previous  to  the  roofing  of  her  new  shrine,  the  old  image  could  be  provisionally  guarded  in  her  own 
closed  aedicula.  Even  in  the  new  shrine  it  seems  to  have  been  contained  in  a separate  aedicula,  the 
painting  of  whose  ceiling  is  recorded  in  one  of  the  inscriptions  (Michaelis,  Ath.  Mitth.  xiv.  361).  It 
is,  however,  quite  possible  that  during  the  building  the  image  was  kept  in  some  other  place  of  safety 
within  the  sanctuary.  Cultus-image  and  temple  are  by  no  means  inseparable  in  ancient  usage  : 
there  are  countless  instances  of  cultus-images  that  never  had  a temple.  The  ancient  holy  idols 
were  habitually  placed  in  a small  portable  shrine  or  aedicula.  It  is  also  several  times  stated  that 
cultus-images  were  kept  in  the  house  of  the  priest  for  the  time  (cf.  the  ol<la  iepa  ov  rj  Upeia  oikA 
at  Eleusis,  ’E (f>pp.  ap%.  1883,  p.  109,  n.  74;  a.  50). 1 Therefore  on  the  Athenian  Citadel  also 
there  would  be  ample  means  for  guarding  the  ancient  image  in  a manner  conformable  to  ancient 
custom.  At  any  rate,  there  is  nothing  that  can  be  urged  on  this  score  against  our  previous 
assumption.  After  the  new  building  had  received  the  ap^alov  ayah  pa,  it  was  officially  called  after  this 
as  being  the  most  important  thing  it  contained  ;2  but  in  common  parlance  it  kept  the  name  of  the 
predecessor  which  it  had  supplanted,  and  was  called  the  ‘Old  Temple.’  In  the  contest  over  the 
building  of  the  Parthenon,  long  waged  between  the  parties  of  Athens,  the  ‘Old  Temple’  was 
certainly  always  opposed  to  the  new  one.  The  Erechtheion,  as  the  work  of  that  party  which  had 
desired  the  maintenance  of  the  old  temple,  as  the  temple  of  the  old  sacred  image,  near  by  the  old 
sacred  ‘ tokens,’  remained  the  ‘ Old  Temple,’  even  though  the  building  was  new  ; it  represented  old 
Athens,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  Parthenon  always  represented  new  Athens. 

It  is  characteristic  of  Nikias  that  he — as  a private  person — dedicated  on  the  Akropolis  a gilt 
‘ Palladion  ’ (Plut.  Nik.  3),  i.e.  clearly  an  archaistic,  idol-like  image  of  Athena  wielding  the  spear. 
In  this  act  he  was  following  Kimon,  the  great  hero  of  his  party,  who,  after  the  battle  of  the 
Eurymedon,  likewise  caused  a gilt  Palladion  to  be  dedicated.  Kimon’s  image  was  sent  to  Delphi.3 
Thus  in  their  new  dedications  this  party  adhered  to  the  old  type  of  the  goddess.  How  much  more 
must  their  programme  have  required  that  they  should  do  their  utmost  to  display  the  ancient  sacred 
image  in  surroundings  worthy  of  her  ! 

The  Erechtheion  was  smaller  in  plan  than  the  old  temple  ; as  a grand  and  spacious  temple 
they  had  the  Parthenon,  and  small  chambers  sufficed  for  the  old  image  and  for  the  worship  of  it  and 
of  Erechtheus.  They  dispensed  even  with  a peristyle,  and  only  set  porches  in  front  of  the  cellas. 
The  Ionic  style  of  architecture  was  selected,  perhaps  in  accordance  with  the  precedent  of  the  old 
temple,  the  architectural  forms  of  which  are  unfortunately  not  known  to  us.  The  choice  of  site  was 
determined  by  the  condition  of  keeping  near  the  sacred  ‘ tokens  ’ ; in  fact,  the  temple  was  to  be 
even  more  closely  attached  to  these  than  its  predecessor  had  been  ; the  cleft  in  the  rock  was 
included  within  the  building — the  Olive  of  course  was  to  remain  in  the  open.  This  arrangement,  how- 
ever, involved  the  necessity  of  building  on  a site  which  included  considerable  differences  of  level  : 
the  western  part,  where  was  the  cleft  in  the  rock,  lay  lower  down  than  the  eastern.  It  is  well  known 
what  skill  the  architect  displayed  in  solving  the  difficulty  arising  from  these  conditions. 

With  regard  to  the  interior  arrangement  of  the  Erechtheion,  there  is,  as  is  well  known,  consider- 
able uncertainty.  This  much  only  is  sure,  that  there  were  two  cross  walls  dividing  it  into  three 
chambers.  The  old  theory  of  a division  into  two  storeys  may  be  regarded  as  completely  refuted.4  Now 
these  three  chambers  clearly  answer  to  the  three  parts  of  the  ‘ Old  Temple.’  In  the  new  building, 
as  in  the  old,  there  is  to  the  east  a larger  cella,  that  of  Athena.  Here  too,  to  westward  of  this,  lie  two 
other  rooms,  one  beyond  the  other.  We  are,  accordingly,  fully  justified  in  supplying  what  is 
destroyed  in  the  Erechtheion  after  the  pattern  of  the  old  temple  : that  is  to  say,  the  central  section 
may  be  regarded  as  having  been  in  the  Erechtheion  also  divided  into  two  chambers,5  accessible 
probably  only  from  the  third,  the  western,  section.6 

Thus  we  obtain  a fixed  point  of  startling  importance  for  the  restoration  of  the  Erechtheion 
and  the  comprehension  of  its  arrangements  for  worship. 

The  temple  as  a whole  is  a unity,  and  as  such  is  called  in  the  inscription  relative  to  its  building 
‘ the  temple  with  the  old  image,’ 7 and  again,  ‘ the  old  temple  of  Polias  ’ ; Pausanias  even  calls  it 

1 Cf.  Paus.  iv.  33,  2 ; vii.  24,  4 ; ix.  40,  12.  2 Cf.  supra,  p.  432. 

3 Plut.  Nikias,  13,  3 ; cf.  Paus.  x.  25,  4.  The  inscription  gave  only  the  name  of  the  Athenians,  since  it  was 
a votive  offering  of  the  state,  but  the  originator  of  the  idea  was  of  course  Kimon. 

4 Julius,  Das  Erechtheion,  1878  (in  Baumeister’s  Denkmdler,  i.  488) ; Borrmann,  Ath.  Mitth.  1881,  372  sqq. 

6 They  must,  however,  have  been  divided  only  by  a slight  partition  wall  that  did  not  affect  the  foundations  ; 

there  is  in  the  foundations  no  trace  of  such  a wall. 

6 That  the  Erechtheion  had  no  door  of  communication  between  the  east  cella  and  the  west  sections  is  a view 
that  has  been  recently  supported  by  Petersen  (Ath.  Mitth.  x.  6 seq. ) with  good  reason. 

7 C.  /.  A.  ii.  464  ; Strabo,  9,  396.  Cf.  supra,  p.  432. 


3 K 


434 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


simply  ‘temple  of  Athena.’1  But  this  unity  consisted  of  two  distinctly  separated  parts.  The 
eastern  part  on  the  higher  ground  was  the  cella  of  Athena,  the  special  temple  of  Polias,  with  its 
porch  turned  towards  the  great  altar  of  Athena.  To  the  larger  and  lowerdying  western  part 
belonged  the  north  and  south  porches.  The  great  north  porch  stands  partly  in  front  of  the  central 
section,  which  shows  that  this  and  the  western  part  were  closely  connected,  forming  a single  whole — 
namely,  the  o’iKt]p.a  ’Epe'xOnov  KaXovpevov,  as  Pausaniashas  it.  Now  this  consisted  of  three  apartments — 
the  west  section,  and  the  central  section,  divided,  as  we  saw,  by  a wall  into  two  chambers.  The  west 
wall,  towards  the  Pandroseion,  had  windows  above,  with  half-columns,  clearly  in  order  to  admit  light 
to  the  central  section.2  The  wall  between  the  western  and  central  sections  had  two  doors  opening 
into  the  chambers,  probably  of  the  same  height  as  the  great  north  door  ; up  to  this  same  level  it  was 
perhaps  divided  into  panels  by  a row  of  pillars.3  No  doubt  the  two  chambers  received  the  more 
precious  and  more  sacred  objects,  and  the  western  section  was  the  antechamber  to  them.  This 
clearly  was  so  in  the  old  temple,  although  there  the  front  apartment  is  larger.  The  two  chambers 
were  almost  exactly  of  the  same  size  in  the  new  building  as  in  the  old. 

Among  the  sights  of  the  Erechtheion  mentioned  by  Pausanias,  the  position  of  one  at  least  is 
unquestionable  : it  is  the  trident-mark  in  the  rock.4  It  lies  under  the  floor  of  the  north  porch,  and 
from  this  place  a covered  passage  leads  straight  to  the  central  section,  opening  into  its  north-west 
angle — that  is,  into  its  northern  chamber.  According  to  Pausanias,  we  must  conceive  the  trident-mark 
and  the  Salt  Spring  as  lying  quite  close  together.  Again,  the  Spring  is  expressly  mentioned  as  evbov, 
within  the  oix^pa.  From  this  we  must  infer  that  the  above-mentioned  covered  passage  joined  the  two 
tokens  ’ of  Poseidon’s  power,  that,  therefore,  the  Salt  Spring  was  in  the  north  chamber  of  the  central 
section  ; from  this,  which  was,  of  course,  also  down  in  the  rock-foundation,  the  way  led  through, 
below  the  north  wall  of  the  building,  to  the  mark  in  the  rock  under  the  north  porch.  The  placing  of 
the  porch  at  this  point,  and  the  great  depth  at  which  it  stands,  are  naturally  explained  by  the  desire 
to  include  the  ‘tokens’  in  the  rock  within  the  limits  of  the  building. 

The  inscription  relative  to  the  building,  where  it  speaks  of  that  part  of  the  interior  walls  which 
had  not  received  its  polish,  mentions  a place  which  it  calls  to  7 Tpoaropiaiov.  This  word  is  evidently 
formed  from  npoaTopiov,  the  enclosure  of  the  mouth  of  a well  or  spring,5  and  therefore  denotes  the 
place,  the  apartment  {ol^pa  is  to  be  supplied)  in  which  is  the  7 rpoaropiov,  the  puteal  ; and  this  can 
scarcely  be  other  than  the  spring  of  salt  water.  The  Prostomiaion,  then,  denotes  the  north  chamber 
of  the  central  section. 

The  inscription  unfortunately  gives  us  a definite  name  for  only  one  other  part  of  the  building : 
this  is  to  KeKpoTrcuv.  It  is  true  that  it  has  hitherto  been  customary  to  place  the  Kekropion  outside,  to 
the  south  of  the  Erechtheion.  But  since  1886  we  have  known  that  the  stylobate  of  the  old  temple 
lay  there,  and  this  certainly  cannot  represent  the  Kekropion  ; and  apart  from  this  an  accurate  study 
of  the  testimony  given  by  the  inscription  shows  that  it  was  a part  of  the  Erechtheion  itself.  The 
context  in  the  inscription  ( C . I.  A.  i.  324  a,  col.  2,  24)  in  itself  makes  this  highly  probable  ; only  the 
name  of  part  of  the  actual  building  could  be  expected  in  this  passage.  But  the  clearest  proof  of  all 
is  given  by  the  fact  that  the  ‘ Caryatid  Porch  ’ is  consistently  called  >7  irpoaraats  rj  n pos  r<u  KeKponiw, 
not  7 rpos  tov  KeKpo7riou.  It  is  the  porch  added  to  the  Kekropion,  not  the  one  that  looks  towards  the 
Kekropion.  As  the  £o>«  npbs  tu>  Ai'da>  t&>  'EKevcnviia  in  the  same  inscription  are  the  figures  on  the  stone, 
fastened  to  the  stone,  so  the  irpoaraais  irpbs  ra>  Ke/cpo7r(<uis  the  porch  attached' to  the  Kekropion.  The 
Kekropion,  then,  must  be  behind  the  porch  ; so  the  name  must  denote  the  western  section  of  the 
temple.  For  the  ‘ Caryatid  Porch  ’ does,  in  fact,  precisely  stand  in  front  of  this  section,  not  over- 
lapping the  central  apartment  as  the  north  porch  does,  but  ending  exactly  in  the  line  of  the  wall 
between  the  sections:  thus  it  is,  in  a sense  quite  proper  to  itself,  the  porch  added  to  the  western 
section.  The  distinction  between  tvpbs  with  the  dative  and  7 rpbs  with  the  genitive  is  very  accurately 
observed  in  this  inscription.  The  toI^os  npos  tov  IlavSpoaelov  is  the  wall  towards  the  Pandroseion,  the 
western  wall,  which  faced  the  Pandroseion  situated  outside  ; in  the  same  way  the  western  pediment 
is  designated  6 7rpoy  tov  TlavbpoaeLov  ateTos.  If  the  ‘ Caryatid  Porch ’was  to  have  been  designated, 

1 t<£  vay  rrjs  ’Adr/vas  (Paus.  i.  27,  2)  no  doubt  refers  to  the  whole  Erechtheion,  whereas  vabs  t?is  IToAiaSoj 
(27,  1)  denotes  the  special  cella  of  Athena,  as  is  shown  by  the  context. 

2 Cf.  Julius  in  Baumeister’s  Denkm.  i.  488. 

3 Cf.  Julius,  loc.  cit.  Borrmann  ( Ath . Mitth.  1881,  p.  388  seq.)  reports  that  the  wall  above  the  level  of  the  doors 
s undivided,  but  below  that  is  carried  down  with  only  half  its  strength  ; probably  there  were  projecting  pillars 
as  far  as  this. 

4 Ath.  Mitth.  1881,  380  seq.  Cf.  Julius,  Das  Erechth.  p.  25. 

5 So  npoirvAaiov  from  irpowuXov.  Michaelis  and  Petersen  can  hardly  be  right  in  deriving  the  word  from 
aripauv,  and  explaining  it  as  the  space  in  front  of  the  spring  (Petersen),  or  in  front  of  the  crripia,  meaning  the 
doors  (Michaelis)  ; Ath.  Mitth.  x.  4. 


THE  ERECHTHEION 


435 


according  to  the  common  view,  as  looking  towards  the  Kekropion,  then,  being  outside  the  Erechtheion, 
it  must  have  been  called  trpus  to v KeKponiov  ; but  it  is  always  called  7 rpus  r&>  Ke/cpo7rio>.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  corner  in  which  most  of  the  unfinished  blocks  lay  is  indicated  as  17  yom'a  17  npos  tov  KeKponlov  ; 
it  is  the  corner  looking  towards  the  Kekropion.  We  may  further  remark  that  these  phrases  defining 
the  ‘Caryatid  Porch’  and  the  corner  by  their  relation  to  the  Kekropion  furnish  a valuable  con- 
firmation of  the  fact  that  the  old  temple  had  at  this  time  (409 — 408)  been  already  removed,  since  other- 
wise they  would  surely  have  been  determined  with  reference  to  that. 

Thus  we  gain  the  name  Kekropion  for  the  western  section  of  the  Erechtheion,  or  at  any  rate  for 
its  southern  part.  This,  then,  is  also  to  too  KtKponos  Upov,  in  which,  according  to  an  inscription  of  the 
year  334 — 333  found  on  the  Citadel,  the  Epheboi  of  the  tribe  Kekropis  put  up  their  honorary  decree.1 2 
And  here  was  the  domain  of  the  priest  of  Kekrops,  taken  from  the  clan  of  the  Amynandridai.3 

Again,  the  conclusions  reached  for  the  Erechtheion  may  be  applied  to  the  old  temple  ; there, 
also,  the  shrine  of  Kekrops  was  in  the  west  cella,  the  section  in  front  of  the  two  chambers.  As 
a hero  who  was  half  in  the  form  of  a serpent,  he  was  naturally  worshipped  according  to  the  rites  that 
pertain  to  those  beneath  the  earth.  This  might  cause  it  to  be  widely  believed  that  the  actual  grave 
of  the  hero  existed  at  this  seat  of  his  worship.3 

Now  let  us  see  what  Pausanias  tells  us.  The  one  eVoSoy  to  the  Erechtheion  which  he  mentions 
must,  as  Petersen  has  shown,4  be  the  great  north  porch  with  its  richly  decorated  doorway.  In  front 
of  this  entrance,  says  Pausanias,  stands  the  altar  of  Zeus  Hypatos.  This  has  been  identified  by 
Petersen,  and  no  doubt  rightly,  with  the  altar  tov  Gvrjx ov  in  the  north  porch,  which  is  mentioned  in 
the  inscription  relative  to  the  building.5  On  this  altar  of  Zeus  were  offered  only  cakes,  according  to 
the  most  ancient  form  of  ritual,  and  it  was  regarded  as  having  been  set  up  by  Kekrops  (Paus.  viii.  2,  3), 
which  agrees  very  well  with  its  being  near  the  Kekropion.  It  no  doubt  stood  at  this  point,  near  the 
divine  ‘ tokens  ’ in  the  rock,  even  before  the  erection  of  the  Erechtheion.  When  that  took  place,  the 
altar  was,  as  the  inscription  shows,  completely  rebuilt.  Its  position  exactly  in  front  of  the  entrance 
to  the  Kekropion  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  legend  of  its  foundation.6 

Pausanias  does  not  mention  the  Kekropion  at  all,  but  this  should  be  no  ground  for  wonder, 
considering  how  much  he  passes  over.  He  hurries,  as  is  always  his  way  when  he  enters  a country, 
a town,  or  a temple,  immediately  to  the  most  important  sight  which  it  contains  ; then,  starting  from 
that  and  retracing  his  steps,  he  notices  whatever  else  there  is.7  In  the  Erechtheion,  when  speaking  of 
the  altar  before  the  entrance,  he  immediately  tacks  on  a mention  of  the  three  principal  altars  within — 
namely,  those  of  Poseidon-Erechtheus,  Boutes,  and  Hephaistos  : thus  he  gets  his  favourite  antithesis, 
so  marked  a feature  of  his  style.  From  the  mention  of  Boutes  he  passes  on  to  speak  of  the  paintings 
of  the  Boutadai.  These  things  cannot  have  been  in  the  Kekropion  ; but,  apart  from  their 
want  of  appropriateness  to  the  Kekropion,  the  fact  that  these  altars  were  the  principal 
centres  of  worship  in  the  Erechtheion  would  in  itself  require  us  to  set  them  rather  in  the 
place  of  honour,  the  central  section.8  This  was,  as  we  saw,  divided  into  two  chambers  ; in  the 
northern  one  was  the  Salt  Spring.  No  doubt  this  chamber  also  contained  the  altar  of  Poseidon- 
Erechtheus,  the  god  to  whom  the  OaKaaaa  ’E pex^f  owed  its  origin.  We  have  the  south  cella,  then, 
free  for  the  worship  of  Boutes  and  Hephaistos.  The  latter  had  his  own  proper  temple  in  the  lower 
city  ; here  he  is  only  a secondary  personage  associated  with  Boutes  as  the  original  ancestor  of  the 
Boutadai,  whose  votive  pictures8  we  must  conceive  as  hung  on  the  walls  of  this  cella.  Boutes  had 

1 AeA.Ti'oi'  apx ■ 1889,  p.  II  ; Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  1889,  257. 

2 C.  I.  A.  iii.  1276.  Cf.  Topffer,  Att.  Geneal.  160  seq. 

3 So  Antiochos  of  Syracuse  ( ap . Clemens,  Protr.  3 ad  fin.  ; Antioch.  Frg.  15,  Muller).  His  information, 

however,  concerning  points  of  Athenian  religion  can  hardly  have  been  very  exact.  If  it  had  been  more  widely 
recognized  that  the  grave  of  Kekrops  was  on  the  Citadel,  it  is  not  likely  that  Clemens  would  have  given  the  full 
quotation  from  Antiochos.  4 Ath.  Mitth.  x.  p.  7 seq. 

5 Loc.  cit.  The  altar  found  in  the  excavations  to  the  east  of  the  north  porch  (Lolling,  Hellen.  Landeskunde 
it.  Topogr.  p.  351 ) must  be  another.  The  altar  of  Zeus  is  said  by  Pausanias  to  be  immediately  before  the  entrance, 
therefore  in  the  porch,  where  the  inscription  tells  us  that  the  altar  of  the  Thyechoos  stood  ; and  this  is  in  fact  called 
after  the  rite  which  we  know  to  have  been  followed  in  the  worship  of  Zeus  at  this  spot. 

6 That  when  restorations  took  place  altars  were  by  no  means  always  erected  again  upon  the  same  sites  has 
been  shown  also  by  the  excavations  at  Olympia  ; the  old  strata  of  remains  indicating  an  altar  do  not  always 
coincide  with  the  later  altars  (see,  e.g. , to  the  west  of  the  Metroon,  Olympia , vol.  iv.  Die  Bronzen,  p.  4).  The 
legends  of  the  foundation  of  altars  refer  to  the  institution  of  the  worship,  not  to  the  actual  altar-block. 

7 Cf.  Gurlitt,  Pausanias , p.  21  sqq.,  75  sqq. 

8 This  in  itself  is  a sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  ordinary  theory,  which  places  those  three  principal  altars 
in  the  antechamber.  The  worship  here  was  in  each  case  without  an  image,  therefore  concentrated  itself  entirely 
upon  the  altars,  which  thus  were  the  most  important  objects  in  the  obc^pa. 

8 The  ypatpal  mentioned  by  Pausanias  consisted  of  the  great  Pinax  containing  the  genealogy  of  the  Eteoboutadai 
which  had  been  dedicated  by  Habron,  son  of  Lykourgos  (Ps.  Plut.  Lives  of  the  X.  Orators , 843),  with  perhaps 
others  of  the  same  kind  subsequently  added. 


436 


THE  TEMPLES  OE  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


his  own  special  priests.’  Thus  we  reach  a highly  satisfactory  result:  each  priest  who  had  here  the  principal 
seat  of  his  office— namely,  the  priests  of  Kekrops,  Poseidon-Erechtheus,  and  Boutes  (to  the  priest  of 
Hephaistos  his  functions  upon  the  Akropolis  were  only  secondary) — possessed  his  own  distinct 
chamber,  and  the  threefold  division  of  the  west  cella  just  answers  to  these  three  priesthoods.  Of 
course  this  arrangement  in  the  Erechtheion  is  simply  taken  over  from  the  old  temple  ; the  chambers 
were,  as  we  noted  above,  of  nearly  equal  size  in  the  two  temples.  Only  the  one  which  pertained  to 
Poseidon-Erechtheus  had  the  advantage  in  the  new  building  of  possessing  in  addition  the  Salt  Spring, 
the  sacred  ‘token’  of  the  god,  united  to  his  altar.  It  was  in  fact  simply  in  order  to  attain  this  object 
that  the  position  of  the  temple  had  been  changed  at  all. 

After  Pausanias  has  mentioned  the  altars  in  the  Erechtheion,  and  in  connexion  with  them  the 
paintings  of  the  Boutadai,  he  continues:  kul — din\ow  ydp  eWi  to  oio^pa — xai 3 vbwp  eariv  cvbov  6(i\daaiov  ei> 
<ppeaTi.  We  have  now  attained  an  excellent  interpretation  of  this  designation  of  the  apartment  as  twofold 
which  has  given  rise  to  so  much  controversy.  Pausanias  refers  to  the  division  of  the  central  section 
into  two  chambers  : this  makes  the  expression  far  more  intelligible  than  it  is  if  we  follow  the  hitherto 
prevalent  view  that  the  antechamber  and  the  principal  cella  are  the  two  components  of  the  double 
whole,  though  dissimilar  to  each  other, — quite  apart  from  the  further  objection  to  the  old  view 
that  it  severs  the  connexion  between  the  altar  of  Poseidon-Erechtheus  and  the  spring,  and  places 
all  the  principal  altars  in  the  antechamber,  which  we  have  found  to  be  the  Kekropion.  But,  it  may 
be  asked,  why  does  Pausanias  wait  to  speak  of  the  division  of  the  chambers  till  after  he  has  named 
the  altars  in  both  ? Clearly  this  is  caused  by  considerations  of  style  merely,  and  in  fact  such 
considerations  always  with  this  author  prevail  over  those  that  concern  the  subject-matter.  The 
enumeration  of  the  altars  within,  introduced  by  the  mention  of  the  altar  outside,  was  not  to  be 
interrupted.  Thus  the  notice  of  the  division  of  the  chambers  is  deferred,  and  is  brought  in  parenthe- 
tically when  the  writer  is  to  mention,  as  being  in  one  of  the  chambers,  the  principal  wonder  of  the 
building,  which  he  has  already  described  as  a whole  with  reference  to  its  altars. 

We  have  shown,  then,  that  there  were  three  chambers  assigned  to  the  worship  of  three  deities — 
Poseidon-Erechtheus,  Boutes,  and  Kekrops  : these  were  all  of  a Chthonian  nature,  and  on  this 
account  their  cellas  faced  west.  This  is  obvious  with  regard  to  Boutes  and  Kekrops,  as  heroes  ; 
and  Poseidon  was  worshipped  here  only  as  Erechtheus — that  is  to  say,  as  a Chthonian  daipcc v 
dwelling  in  the  depths.  Therefore  mythology,  which  divided  god  and  hero,  told  the  story  that 
Erechtheus  had  been  banished  to  the  depths  of  the  earth  by  means  of  blows  dealt  by  the  trident.3 

Again,  it  must  have  been  at  some  spot  in  the  Erechtheion,  and  previously  in  the  old  temple, 
that  the  honey-cakes  were  set  each  month  for  the  great  snake,  the  guardian  of  the  Citadel.4  And  it 
is  highly  probable  that  this  spot  was  in  the  cella  of  Athena  itself.  The  snake  always  appears  in  the 
most  intimate  connexion  with  Athena.  Pheidias  represented  it  coiled  by  the  shield  of  his  Polias. 
There  seems  to  have  been  no  fixed  tradition  as  to  who  the  snake  really  was  ; Herodotos  and  Aristo- 
phanes call  it  simply  the  guardian  of  the  Citadel.  It  was  a sort  of  genius  loci , not  specially 
individualized  ; only  in  later  days  was  it  conjectured  that  the  snake  was  Erichthonios.5  They  con- 
ceived of  him  as  buried  in  the  temple  of  Polias,8  and  surviving  in  a sense  in  the  form  of  the  snake. 
Again,  Erichthonios  is  only  a second  individuality  divided  off  from  that  of  Erechtheus.  There  is  no 
worship  of  Erichthonios  ; he  figures  in  myth,  not  in  ritual.  There  was  certainly  no  real  grave  of  his 
in  the  temple.  But  the  snake  also  had  no  special  priest  ; it  was  tended  by  the  priestess  of  Athena.7 
Thus  neither  the  snake  nor  Erichthonios  had  any  influence  on  the  partition  of  the  Erechtheion. 

We  have  explained  the  sections  of  the  Erechtheion,  and  thereby  those  of  the  old  temple  which 
it  succeeded.  With  regard  to  the  fortunes  of  the  building,  we  know  from  Xenophon  that  as  early  as 

1 C.  I.  A.  ii.  1656  = iii.  302. 

2 The  double  no  1 given  by  the  manuscript  tradition  has  been  rightly  defended  by  Petersen  ( Ath . Mittli.  x. 
3)  ; the  passage  gives  no  ground  for  objection,  and  it  is  pure  caprice  to  emend,  to  suppose  lacunae,  or  the  like. 

3 Eurip.  Ion.  281  seq.  rrArjya!  Tpiahrjs  thrust  him  into  a xacrjua  x^ovos  ; clearly  the  myth  conceived  of  Erechtheus 
as  living  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock  under  the  north  porch  which  was  ascribed  to  the  action  of  Poseidon’s  trident. — In 
Hyginus,  Fab.  46,  Erechtheus  is  struck  by  lightning,  and  this  is  surely  no  more  than  a later  transformation  of  the 
blow  from  the  trident,  in  a form  divorced  from  the  local  circumstances. 

4 Herod,  viii.  41  ; Aristoph.  Lysistr.  758.  The  sacred  place  on  the  Citadel  is  named  as  the  scene 
without  further  specification.  Hesychios  and  Eustathios  are  the  first  to  speak  of  the  temple  of  Erechtheus  or 
of  Polias. 

5 Paus.  i.  24,  7 ; Hygin.  A sir.  2,  13. — Von  Wilamowitz  ( Kydathen , p.  141)  has  conjectured  that,  at  the  end 
of  the  play  by  Euripides,  Erechtheus  was  transformed  into  the  oh<ovpb s inpis.  But  the  line  from  an  unknown 
tragedy  (Eurip.  Erg.  922)  to  which  he  refers  speaks  only  of  a metamorphosis  of  half  the  body  into  a snake.  More- 
over, we  should  expect  to  find  a mention  somewhere  in  literature  of  the  identity  between  the  snake  of  the  Akropolis 
and  Erechtheus,  if  it  had  been  expressed  at  the  conclusion  of  the  celebrated  piece  by  Euripides. 

6 Apollodor.  Bibl.  3,  14,  7,  1 ; Clemens  Al.  Protr.  3 ad  fin.  But  he  is  not  by  any  means,  as  Rohde  asserts 

( Psyche , i.  128),  identified  with  Erechtheus.  7 Cf.  Herodot.  loc.  cit. 


KALLI  MACHOS 


437 


406 — 405  it  was  injured  by  fire.  This  happened  just  at  the  time  that  Athens  was  at  the  lowest  depth  of 
her  difficulties,  and  it  seems  accordingly  that  for  the  moment  nothing  was  done  beyond  temporary 
repairs.  Not  till  395—394  do  we  find  an  inscription  (C.  /.  A.  ii.  829)  recording  a real  restoration  of  the 
part  destroyed  ; and  to  this  time  also  seems  to  belong  an  inscription  commending  the  people  of 
Karpathos  for  having  presented  a cypress  to  be  used  for  the  roof  of  Polias’s  temple.1  Other 
inscriptions  (C.  I.  A.  ii.  733  sqq .)  show  that  in  the  fourth  century  votive  gifts  in  the  shape  of 
miscellaneous  small  valuables  had  accumulated  in  the  Erechtheion  also. 

But  by  far  the  most  valuable  object  kept  in  the  Erechtheion — namely,  the  golden  lamp  of 
Kallimachos  surmounted  by  the  palm-tree  of  brass — had  been  in  all  probability  dedicated  at  the  v'ery 
beginning,  when  the  temple  was  first  erected.  The  palm  clearly  passed  through  the  roof,  serving 
as  a chimney,  and  was  thus  a part  of  the  actual  building.  Thus  it  is  permissible  to  conjecture 
that  Kallimachos,  whom  we  know  to  have  done  architectural  work,  took  pait  also  in  the  building 
of  the  Erechtheion  in  general,  apart  from  the  lamp.  The  decorative  marble  work  of  this  temple, 
unsurpassed  in  carefulness  of  execution,  would  accord  excellently  with  the  elegantia  et  subtilitas 
artis  marmorariae 2 for  which  this  artist  was  renowned,  and  which  earned  for  him  the  surname 
Katatexitechnos.  And  it  is  certainly  no  mere  accident  that  the  Erechtheion  is  the  first  monument 
at  Athens  in  the  ornamentation  of  which  is  introduced  the  so-called  akanthos,3  the  same  motive 
which  helped  Kallimachos  to  create  the  Corinthian  capital.4  And  we  may  yet  further  conjecture 
that  Kallimachos  stood  in  specially  close  relation  to  Nikias  and  his  party,  with  whom  originated  the 
building  of  the  Erechtheion.  There  is  something  particularly  appropriate  in  the  commission  for 
the  Erechtheion  : here  no  new  statue  was  to  be  erected  ; the  builders  desired  nothing  beyond  the 
old  sacred  image.  These  pious  souls  use  their  money  for  making  magnificent  cultus-appliances.  And 
the  strength  of  Kallimachos  must  have  lain  in  decorative  art.  On  that  account  he  ranked,  as  Pausanias 
says,  ‘after  the  greatest  masters,’  while  only  one  statue  of  a god  made  by  him  is  recorded.5  There 
is  a special  interest  in  the  form  used  for  conducting  the  smoke  of  the  lamp.  Benndorf  already 
rightly  perceived  that  it  must  have  some  sort  of  connexion  with  the  palm  of  the  votive  offering 
dedicated  after  the  victory  on  the  Eurymedon.6  Kimon  had  then  caused  to  be  erected  a gilt  Palladion 
on  a palm  of  bronze,  symbolizing  the  East  vanquished  by  Athena’s  proteges.  Nikias  was  the  heir  to 
the  political  ideas  of  Kimon’s  party  ; the  palm-tree  in  the  Erechtheion  we  consider  as  being,  in 
its  conception,  the  work  of  Nikias,  and  it  took  up  once  more  that  favourite  Kimonian  allusion  to 
the  national  victory  over  the  East. 

But  in  yet  another  particular  was  the  tendency  of  Nikias  mirrored  in  the  artist  Kallimachos. 
The  literary  notices  of  him  contain  what  has  hitherto  seemed  an  irreconcilable  contradic- 
tion. While  the  lamp  in  the  Erechtheion  and  the  creation  of  the  Corinthian  capital  definitely 
point  to  the  last  third  of  the  fifth  century  as  his  date,  he  is  on  the  other  hand  named  in  con- 
nexion with  Kalamis,  and  a relief  which  bears  the  artist’s  name,  and  clearly  professes  to  be  a copy 


1 Bull,  de  Corr.  Hell.  xii.  154  sqq.  (Foucart).  I have  already  remarked  [supra,  p.  415,  n.  4)  how  untenable  is 
the  hypothesis  of  Szanto,  who  supposes  Dorpfeld’s  temple  to  be  meant  here. — It  has  been  proved  by  Schultz  and 
Gardner  (/.  H.  S.  xii.  p.  1 sqq. ) that  the  north  door  is  a later  restoration,  which  is  perhaps  connected  with 
this  fire. 

2 Vitr.  4,  1,  10.  Michaelis  emends  the  marmoreae  of  the  MSS.  to  marmorariae  [Pans.  Descr.  Arc. 
p.  26). 

3 Cf.  the  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Samm.  Sabouroff,  vol.  i.  Skulpt.  Tntrod.  p.  8.  The  Akroterion  of  the 
Parthenon  decorated  with  akanthos  must  have  been  added  after  the  completion  of  the  building.  Cf.  loc.  cit.  n.  5. 

4 I have  shown  (loc.  cit.  p.  9)  that  the  Corinthian  capital  cannot  in  any  case  have  been  invented  earlier  than 
the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  War.  The  recent  attempts  to  make  it  out  earlier  are  all  refuted  by  the  certain 
facts  with  regard  to  the  development  of  the  finials  of  stelai.  I mistakenly  (loc.  cit. ) followed  Benndorf  in  regarding 
Kallimachos  as  an  earlier  artist,  and  therefore  necessarily  rejected  Vitruvius’s  statement  that  he  invented  the 
Corinthian  capital.  This  was  an  error.  It  is  true  that  the  statement  is  dressed  out  as  an  anecdote  ; the  story  of 
the  basket  with  the  akanthos  growing  round  it  as  the  model  of  the  capital  is  of  course  only  due  to  a later  explana- 
tion of  its  form.  But  the  origin  of  the  Corinthian  capital  belongs  to  a time  of  no  great  obscurity  ; the  kernel 
of  the  tradition,  the  part  assigned  to  Kallimachos  as  creator  of  the  form,  cannot  but  be  accepted  as  true.  Artists 
themselves  were  by  that  time  beginning  to  write  books.  The  date  of  Kallimachos,  known  from  the  evidence  of 
the  lamp,  and  the  date  at  which  the  Corinthian  capital  must  have  arisen  agree  exactly.  Thus  there  is  no  ground 
for  doubt. — The  temple  of  Phigalia,  too,  whether  built  by  Iktinos  or  no,  cannot  belong  to  a time  earlier  than  the 
Peloponnesian  War.  The  style  of  the  frieze  is  closely  akin  to  the  Nike  balustrade,  and  essentially  diverse  from 
that  of  the  Parthenon.  The  antefixes,  likewise,  decorated  with  akanthos — there  are  still  fragments  remaining  on 
the  spot — point  to  the  time  of  the  Erechtheion  at  the  earliest.  Probably  the  temple  belongs  to  the  time  of  the 
peace  of  Nikias  ; its  erection  at  that  time  would  be  historically  also  very  intelligible. 

5 A seated  Hera  at  Plataia,  in  the  same  temple  for  which  the  Elder  Praxiteles  made  the  principal  statue 
(see  supra , p.  102).  The  date  (circa  425)  is  again  in  excellent  accord  with  the  other  dates  known  for 
Kallimachos. 

6 Benndorf,  fiber  das  Kultusbild  der  Athena  Nike,  p.  40.  He  only  drew  the  mistaken  inference  that  the 
lamp  also  was  set  up  soon  after  the  victory  on  the  Eurymedon. 


43§ 


THE  TEMPLES  OE  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


of  a work  of  his,  shows  an  archaistic  style.1  This  becomes  intelligible  when  we  have  recognized 
Kallimachos  as  the  artist  of  the  pious  Nikias,  who  erected  a ‘ Palladion.’ 2 There  must  really  have 
been  archaistic  works  by  Kallimachos.  The  notices  we  have  of  him  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  he  had 
the  skill  to  combine  the  grace  and  delicacy  of  archaic  works  with  the  highest  degree  of  elegance 
belonging  to  the  free  style  of  his  period  ; and,  moreover,  that  he  especially  distinguished  himself  in 
delicate  and  exact  metal-work  : he  made  the  grand  golden  lamp,  no  doubt  adorned  in  the  richest 
fashion,  and  he  received  the  surname  Katatexitechnos. 

Now  there  is  a whole  set  of  other  works  which  answer  exactly  to  the  conception  which 
we  are  thus  led  to  form  of  Kallimachos,  so  much  so  that  we  surely  are  justified  in  connecting 
them  with  him.  In  connexion  with  the  saltantes  Lacaenae  mentioned  by  Pliny  as  a renowned 
work  of  Kallimachos,  we  may  recall  the  dancing-women  wearing  the  kalathiskos,3  which  have 
come  down  to  us  in  diverse  variants,  in  reliefs  and  on  gems  of  later  date.  They  are  charac- 


Fig.  179. — Kalathiskos  dancers  on  either  side  of  Palladium.  Terra-cotta  plaque  (Berlin). 


terized  by  a certain  graceful  charm,  due  to  a slightly  archaic  manner,  and  combined  with 
great  elegance  and  a free  treatment  of  the  draperies  that  is  clearly  influenced  by  metal-work. 
These  dancers  more  than  once  occur  beside  a Palladion,4  and  this  was  probably  the  case  in  the 

1 Cf.  Benndorf,  10c.  cit.-,  Lowy,  /.  G.  B.  p.  331  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  435  ; Hauser,  Neuatt.  Rel.  p.  58. 

2 Cf.  supra , p.  433.  May  the  relief  given  Gerhard,  Gesamm.  Abh.  PL  23,  3 (cf.  Benndorf,  loc.  cit.  p.  39  ; 
Kekule,  Balustrade , 1st  ed.  p.  9),  be  traceable  to  a votive  offering  of  Nikias  ? It  is  a Palladion  with  the  snake  of  the 
Citadel,  Nike,  and  a victorious  general.  The  archaic  style  would  accord  excellently  with  such  a view,  as  well 
as  the  subject.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  head  (Colt.  Barracco,  PI.  25,  25  a)  gives  a good  notion  of  what  a head 
of  a ‘ Palladion  ’ by  Kallimachos  would  be  like  ; the  features  (especially  lower  part  of  face)  showing  conscious 
archaism  adapted  to  a type  derived  from  the  Pheidian  ideal  of  Athena. 

s Cf.  the  instances  collected  by  Stephani,  Compte  Rendu , 1865,  27  sqq. , 60  sqq. ; Hauser,  Neuatt.  Rel.  p.  96  seq. , 
100.  In  spite  of  diverse  variants  one  can  see  that  the  later  monuments  must  be  based  upon  a celebrated 
original.  We  must  distinguish  from  them  some  works  of  an  earlier  date,  such  as  the  gold  plaques  from  the 
Crimea,  some  terra-cottas  from  Greece  (eg.  Dumont-Chaplain,  Ctlram.  Gr.  ii.  10,  1),  and  the  reliefs  from 
Gjolbaschi : these  are  independent.  On  the  other  hand,  two  slabs  of  Pentelic  marble,  each  with  a relief  of  a 
dancing-girl,  recently  brought  from  Italy  to  the  Berlin  Museum  (Arch.  Anz.  1893,  p.  76  seq.)axe  also  to  be  referred 
to  that  celebrated  original.  They  are  good  specimens  of  the  so-called  later  Attic  school,  by  no  means  genuine 
archaic  works  (as  they  are  called  by  Kekule,  loc.  cit.)-,  the  drapery  is  carelessly  treated,  the  heads  were  very 
beautiful.  A paste  in  Berlin  (Tolken,  iii.  1480),  perhaps  of  the  time  of  Augustus,  also  belongs  to  the  veiy 
best  class  of  replicas.  Among  these  rank  also  the  excellent  reliefs  of  a cup  from  Arezzo,  on  which  the 
Palladion  again  stands  in  the  centre  upon  a pillar  (Notizie  degli  Sc  aid,  1884,  PI.  7).  It  would  certainly  be 
quite  intelligible  if  dancing-girls  of  this  type,  with  the  short  tunics,  were  designated  in  the  later  jargon  of  art 
as  ‘ Lakonian  women.’ 

4 Especially  excellent  is  the  Roman  terra-cotta  relief  in  Berlin  (Fig.  179). 


KALLI  MACHOS 


439 


original.  A Palladion  surrounded  by  these  dainty  worshippers  would  accord  excellently  with  the 
accounts  given  of  Kallimachos.  The  type  of  head  seen  in  the  Palladion  of  the  relief  in  Berlin 
(Fig.  179)  is  exactly  what  one  would  expect  in  the  period  immediately  after  Pheidias.  In  general  the 
Palladion  maybe  conceived  as  approximately  resembling  the  well-known  ‘Dresden  Pallas’;1  the 
combats  of  giants  on  her  robe  may  well  be  intended  to  remind  us  of  the  ornamentation  on  the 
Peplos  of  the  goddess  who  dwelt  in  the  Erechtheion,  and  the  motives  of  the  groups  and  type  of  the 
giants  point  precisely  to  that  period  to  which  Kallimachos  belongs.  But  above  all  we  must  speak 
here  of  the  statue  of  Artemis  at  Munich,2  that  remarkable  archaistic  work  whose  exquisite  draperies, 
at  once  floating  and  transparent,  declare  it  to  be  a product  of  that  period  to  which  belong  the  Nike 
of  Paionios  and  the  reliefs  of  the  Nike  Balustrade  (Fig.  180).  Moreover,  we  can  now  understand 
those  magnificent  dancing  Bacchantes,  so  often  reproduced  in  later  times,3  who  combine  certain 
features  of  an  archaistic  style  with  the  highest  degree  of  freedom  and  movement  in  the  rendering  of 
folds  ; all  this  corresponds  completely  with  the  above-mentioned  Artemis.  The  drapery  clings  so 
closely  to  the  body  that  this  shows  almost  as  plainly  as  if  it  were  naked,  and  at  the  sides  the  garments 
spread  in  those  peculiar,  rushing  lines  which  seem  to  betray  the  influence  of  work  in  metal.  The 
Nike  balustrade  enables  us  to  fix  historically  this  style  of  drapery.  Now,  it  is  quite  natural  that  we 
should  find  in  these  Bacchantes  a strong  resemblance  to  the  Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes  ; 4 this  would 
be  a work  of  the  same  period,  and  probably  only  slightly  earlier  than  that  of  Kallimachos. 

In  the  so-called  New  Attic  period  it  is  clear  that  Kallimachos  was  imitated  to  a great  extent ; 
many  of  the  charming  motives  of  the  later  Attic  reliefs,  with  their  elegance  and  their  slightly 
archaistic  look,  may  be  ultimately  due  to  his  decorative  genius  ; this  may  especially  be  the  case 
with  those  splendid  decorations  on  candelabra  and  pedestals,  in  which  the  akanthos  is  combined 
with  figures  displaying  archaistic  motives.  The  fact  remarked  by  Hauser,5 *  that  these  decora- 
tions show  many  signs  of  a tradition  derived  from  the  older  style  of  metal-work,  would  again 
agree  excellently  with  Kallimachos  the  Toreutes.  On  account  of  the  relief  which  bears  the  name 
of  Kallimachos  we  may  also  ascribe  to  this  artist  works  of  the  archaistic  style  properly  so  called, 
i.e.  such  as  are  wholly  based  on  the  archaic  style  and  seek  to  bring  it  to  the  highest  pitch  of 
\f7TTuTr)s  and  xa7)ls'-  8 I am  inclined  to  believe  that  there  is  still  preserved  to  us  in  the  so-called 
Altar  of  the  Four  Godson  the  Akropolis  7 an  original  of  the  kind  by  the  artist  in  question  : for  fresh- 
ness and  delicacy  its  reliefs  are  a whole  heaven  above  the  ordinary  products  of  the  archaistic  style. 
Moreover,  the  Lesbian  Kyma  which  runs  round  below  the  figures  is  executed  quite  in  the  taste  and 
manner  of  the  Erechtheion.  The  work  was  the  pedestal  of  a statue,  perhaps  of  a ‘ Palladion,’ 8 
certainly  of  a figure  in  archaistic  style.  The  four  gods  on  the  pedestal  clearly  have  reference  to  the 
ancient  forms  of  worship  which  had  found  a new  and  beautified  home  in  the  Erechtheion  : Hephaistos 
and  Athena,  the  parents  of  Erichthonios,  stand  facing  each  other,  and  behind  Athena  comes  a god  to 
whom  we  may  give  the  name  Poseidon-Erechtheus ; 9 lastly  there  comes  Hermes,  who  was  also 


1 Which  seems  to  me  a copy  of  an  original  in  bronze. 

2 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  450.  Cf.  supra,  p.  52,  n.  4.  The  terra-cotta  replica  of  this  figure  mentioned 
by  Rossbach  in  Ath.  Mitth.  1890,  69,  cannot  but  be  modern,  as  it  seems  to  me  after  an  actual  examination  of 
the  work.  The  figure  is  heavy,  and  covered  with  a poor  varnish  of  black  tint  that  is  not  ancient.  It  is  an  exact 
copy  of  the  statue  at  Munich  : the  difference  in  the  crown  of  which  Rossbach  speaks  has  no  real  existence.  The 
figure  was  sold  in  the  Castellani  auction  in  1884,  and  taken  to  Lyons. 

3 Winter  has  discussed  them  in  50th  Berliner  Winckelmannsprogramm,  p.  97  sqq. 

4 The  affinity  to  the  type  of  Venus  Genetrix,  as  it  is  called,  has  been  perceived  by  Winter,  loc.  cit.  117. 
But  his  mistaken  view  as  to  the  date  of  the  relief  obliged  him  to  draw  an  equally  mistaken  inference  as  to  the 
period  to  which  the  Aphrodite  belongs.  Cf.  supra,  p.  19,  82. 

5 Hauser,  Neuatt.  Bel.  p.  121  sqq. 

B Hauser  (loc.  cit.  159  sqq.)  thinks  that  the  introduction  of  the  archaic  style  properly  so  called  can  be 
exactly  dated  by  means  of  the  figure  of  Athena  on  the  Panathenaic  amphoras.  Perhaps  about  350  the  pretty 
archaic  treatment  was  applied  even  to  the  established  type  of  the  prize  amphora,  almost  equivalent  to  a coat  of  arms 
of  the  state.  But  this  is  a reason  for  inferring  that  the  style  had  been  established  for  some  time  before  circa  350, 
rather  than  that  it  was  only  then  introduced.  We  may  note  here  that  Hauser  is  certainly  right  in  dating  the  two 
Amphoras  from  Taucheira  (Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  48,  c,  d,  and  h,  13,  14)  before  367.  He  might  have  gone  further: 
those  two  vases  belong,  as  is  proved  especially  by  the  style  of  the  reverse,  to  the  second  half  of  the  fifth 
century,  and  serve  to  bridge  over  the  gap  in  the  series  of  Panathenaic  amphoras  according  to  the  dates  hitherto 
accepted. 

7 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  421  ; Hauser,  loc.  cit.  34. 

8 According  to  Michaelis  (Ath.  Mitth.  i.  298)  the  side  on  which  Hephaistos  is  was  the  one  that  faced  the 
way  the  statue  looked  : this  does  not  at  all  exclude  the  conjecture  given  above. 

9 Hauser  (loc.  cit. ) regards  him  as  Zeus,  who  certainly  was  also  represented  under  this  type.  But  the  type  is 
suitable  for  Poseidon  too,  and  the  little  that  remains  of  the  end  of  the  staff,  so  far  as  I can  see  in  the  cast,  agrees 
at  any  rate  better  with  a trident  than  with  a sceptre.  The  shape  of  the  trident  was  like  that  on  the  Capitoline 
puteal  (see  infra,  p.  441).  Cf.  Michaelis,  Ath.  Mitth.  i.  298.  Hauser’s  suggestion  of  the  birth  of  Athena  is  not 
happy.  Poseidon  moreover  has  been  already  rightly  recognized  by  Botticher,  Erkl.  Verzeichnis  der  Gipsabg.  1278. 


Fig.  180. — Archaistic  Artemis  from  Gabii  (Munich). 


KALLIMACHOS  AND  ARCHAICISM 


441 


worshipped  in  Athena’s  cella.  The  artist  has  brought  together  the  four  great  divinities,  whose  rites 
were  performed  in  the  Erechtheion,  excluding  the  heroes.  And  the  person  who  erected  this  altar 
certainly  belonged  to  that  piously  conservative  party  to  whom  we  owe  the  building  of  the  Erechtheion 
itself. 

The  marked  agreement  in  style  and  the  peculiar  delicate  workmanship  indicates  that  the  well- 
known  Corinthian  puteal 1 is  also  to  be  ascribed  to  the  same  artist,  or  at  least  to  some  person  closely 
connected  with  him.  The  place  at  which  the  relief  was  found  creates  no  difficulty  : that  Kallimachos 
did  work  at  Corinth  is  attested  by  the  very  name  of  the  Corinthian  capital,  which  could  only  have 
been  given  to  it  if,  as  the  well-known  anecdote  relates,  Kallimachos  used  his  creation  first  in  Corinth. 
The  two  principal  deities  on  the  puteal  in  question  are  Apollo  and  Athena  ; here  again  no  action  at 
all  is  represented,2  but  only  an  assemblage  of  deities  that  was  worshipped  in  a particular  shrine. 
There  is  also  a group  of  three  Charites  or  Horai,3  and  in  the  figure  of  one  of  these  the  artist  has  been 
led  away  by  the  charm  of  a graceful  motive  to  depart  somewhat  from  the  part  he  is  playing. 

Another  well-head,  in  the  Capitoline  Museum,4  is  only  a poor  and  tasteless  piece  of  copyist’s  work, 
admirably  calculated  to  show  us  the  difference  that  exists  between  original  and  copy  even  in  things 
archaistic  ; but  we  can  see  that  it  is  traceable  to  an  original  of  the  same  kind,  and  very  likely  also 
by  the  hand  of  the  same  artist  as  the  Pedestal  of  the  Four  Gods  and  the  Corinthian  puteal.  This  is 
shown  by  the  marked  similarity  in  style  and  in  individual  motives.5  The  principal  figures  are  of 
course  here  also  the  two  that  face  each  other,  and  those  who  immediately  follow  them.  We  have  here 
on  the  left  Zeus,  Hera,  and  Athena,  on  the  right  opposite  them  Hephaistos,  Poseidon,  and  Hermes. 
Many  mistaken  guesses  have  been  made  as  to  the  reason  of  this  assemblage.  Our  previous  discussion 
brings  us  easily  to  the  right  explanation : these  also  are  the  deities  of  the  Erechtheion.  Athena,  as 
is  right  here  in  the  festal  procession,  gives  precedence  to  Zeus  Hypatos  with  his  spouse  ; opposite  them, 
just  as  on  the  Pedestal  of  the  Four  Gods,  come  again  Hephaistos,  Poseidon-Erechtheus,  and  Hermes. 
Behind  these  leading  gods  there  follow  yet  other  Olympian  deities,  selected  with  greater  freedom.'’ 
The  spring  (t ppcap ) in  the  Erechtheion  no  doubt  received  when  the  temple  was  built  a new  ornamental 
enclosure  which  was  probably  designed  by  Kallimachos.  Should  we  not  regard  the  puteal  in  the 
Capitol  as  a copy  of  it?  The  sacredness  and  renown  of  this  spring  would  make  it  very  intelligible 
that  its  decorations  should  have  been  copied  in  Roman  times. 

On  account  of  the  kindred  style  I should  be  inclined  further  to  conjecture  that  the  so-called 
‘Tripod-Basis’  at  Dresden7  is  a copy  after  Kallimachos,  and  probably  after  an  original  in  bronze. 
Here  the  archaistic  reliefs  are  again  combined  with  an  ornamentation  which,  in  its  treatment  of  the 
so-called  akanthos  and  the  flowers,  stands  in  close  relation  to  the  Erechtheion,  while  the  winged 
Silenoi  introduce  an  element  that  belongs  to  older  times.  The  purpose  of  the  work--  it  is  a stand 
for  some  monumental  candelabrum  or  lamp-carrier,  and  was  no  doubt  destined  originally  for  a 
shrine,  probably  of  Apollo— is  also  suggestive  of  Kallimachos,  who  made  the  lamp  for  the  Erechtheion. 

Finally,  I incline  to  regard  the  armchair  found  in  front  of  the  Pronaos  of  the  Parthenon  8 as  an 
original,  hardly  indeed  from  the  hand,  but  at  least  from  the  studio  of  Kallimachos.  It  shows  once 
more  that  remarkable  combination  of  dainty  archaism  and  ‘ swallow-tail  ’ folds  with  an  ornamentation 
resembling  that  of  the  Erechtheion.9  How  highly  this  work  was  esteemed  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 

1 Cf.  recently  Hauser,  loc.  cit.  162  seq.  He  indicates  the  archaic  style,  and  is  inclined  to  date  the  monument 
shortly  after  350.  Wings  on  the  foot  occur  in  archaic  monuments  not  only  on  shoes  but  also  attached  to  the 
bare  foot  (cf.  e.g.  the  old  Ionic  monuments,  Mon.  d.  Inst.  vi.  46,  3 ; Ohnefalsch-Richter,  Kypros , PI.  31,  6),  so 
that  this  detail  in  the  Hermes  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  argument  of  late  date.  Hauser  (p.  163,  n.  3) 
rightly  calls  attention  to  the  carved  Astragal ; this  again  answers  completely,  as  it  seems,  to  the  style  of 
the  Erechtheion. 

2 The  usual  interpretation,  which  regards  it  as  the  introduction  of  Herakles  to  Olympos,  is  untenable  (I  also 
followed  it  formerly,  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  col.  2239)  : Zeus  could  not  possibly  be  absent. 

3 The  triple  group  is  indicated  by  holding  hands,  in  accordance  with  the  established  type.  Ihe  interpreta- 
tion of  one  of  the  figures  as  Hebe  was  a mistake. 

4 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  424;  Hauser,  loc.  cit.  p.  60  seq. 

5 Athena,  Hephaistos  with  the  hammer,  Apollo,  Herakles,  should  especially  be  compared. 

6 Here,  as  on  the  Corinthian  puteal,  Herakles  follows  after  his  protectress  Athena,  which  confirms  the  Attic 
origin.  It  was  a matter  of  boast  that  Herakles  was  worshipped  as  an  Olympian  god  first  in  Athens,  ar.d  archaic 
Attic  vases  show  Herakles  already  present  on  Olympos  at  the  birth  of  Athena.  That  the  introduction  of 
Herakles  to  Olympos  cannot  be  meant  has  been  rightly  remarked  by  Hauser. 

7 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  423  ; Hauser,  loc.  cit.  52,  1 1 7 seq.  ; Reisch,  Weihgeschenke,  p.  99.  I he  view 

which  I formerly  advanced  (Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  col.  2232),  that  the  work  was  an  original  of  the  fourth  century, 
I cannot  maintain  after  a second  examination  of  the  work  itself.  The  workmanship  is  later,  but  it  is  certainly 
a mere  copy  from  an  earlier  original.  That  it  is  a pedestal  not  for  a choregic  tripod  but  for  a candelabrum  has  been 
shown  by  Hauser  and  Reisch.  8 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  1 33 2- 

9 The  stylistic  treatment  of  the  akanthos  is  characteristic,  as  is  the  retention  of  the  conical  arrangement  of 
the  palmette-leaves,  and  the  form  of  the  spiral,  which  is  not  yet,  as  it  becomes  later,  purely  an  adaptation  of 

3 L 


442 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


fact  that  there  was  a copy  of  it  at  Rome.1  On  the  upper  edge  of  the  original  is  an  inscription,  which 
if  it  were  complete  would  furnish  us  with  an  exact  date,  since  it  names  the  Archon  Eponymos.  I 
conjecture  that  it  should  be  restored  thus  : €tt'i  Ar/poo-j-JpuTo  ap\oiJTo[s,  and  that  the  work  therefore 
belongs  to  393  — 392. 2 There  is  of  course  not  the  slightest  difficulty  in  supposing  Kallimachos  to 
have  been  still  at  work  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 

The  archaistic  fashion  of  the  time  of  N ikias  no  doubt  found  other  adherents  also  among  the  artists. 
Even  Pheidias’s  pupil  Alkamenes  must  have  followed  it  in  one  case  : his  triple  Hekate  on  the  Nike 
bastion  was,  as  is  shown  by  the  numerous  imitations,  an  archaistic  work.3  There  was  an  old  and 
simple  type  of  idol,  popular  at  Athens,  in  which  Hekate  was  represented  as  a pillar  with  three  heads.4 
Developing  this,  Alkamenes 5 created  the  three  figures  with  their  backs  resting  against  the  pillar.  He 
gave  them  the  Doric  peplos  girt  over  the  diplois,  as  Pheidias  was  fond  of  representing  it,  with  an 
Ionic  under-garment.  The  attitude  was  the  stiff  pose  of  an  old  idol,  the  folds  were  archaistic,  without 
however  degenerating  into  the  exaggerated  prettiness  of  Kallimachos.  The  heads  seem  to  have 
displayed  the  free  and  grand  type  of  the  epoch.  The  work  was  certainly  contemporary  with  the 
building  of  the  new  temple  on  the  Nike  bastion,  when  it  would  seem  desirable  to  replace  the  old 
idol  which  had  probably  existed  down  to  that  time. 


V.  The  Temple  of  Athena  Nike. 

Thus  we  have  passed  to  a new  subject,  the  temple  of  Athena  Nike,  the  fifth  extant  temple  to 
Athena  on  the  Citadel,  and  the  last  to  be  studied  here.  It  fits  in  excellently  with  the  results  we 
have  so  far  reached. 

Recent  investigations  into  the  date  of  the  temple  of  Nike  have  at  least  established  with  certainty 
the  terminus  post  quem.  Julius  and  Bohn  did  indeed  consider  that  they  had  fixed  also  the 
terminus  atite  quem ; they  tried  to  prove  that  the  temple  of  Nike  was  planned  and  erected 
during  the  time  of  the  building  of  the  Propylaia.  Dorpfeld  however  has  removed  the  basis  of  their 
assertion  by  showing 6 that  the  original  plan  of  the  south-west  wing  of  the  Propylaia  was  curtailed 
before  the  building  of  it  had  begun  at  all,  that  therefore  this  curtailment  could  not  have  been  due  to 
the  temple  of  Nike,  even  if,  as  is  generally  supposed,  that  was  planned  while  the  building  was  in 
progress.  Some  sacred  place  existing  on  the  bastion,  before  the  Propylaia  were  begun  at  all,  must 
have  been  the  cause.  Next  Wolters  proved  7 that  this  sacred  place  was  certainly  not  the  now  extant 
temple  of  Nike,  and  that  even  the  curtailed  design  of  Mnesildes,  and  indeed  the  whole  Propylaia  as 
actually  built,  including  even  its  very  latest  parts,  showed  no  trace  of  the  existence  of  the  present 
temple  of  Nike.  The  bastion  was  higher  when  the  Propylaia  were  built.  Mnesikles  did  not  carry 
the  steps  completely  round  the  anta  of  the  south-west  wing,  because  at  that  time  the  third  step  of  the 
Propylaia  lay  still  below  the  top  of  the  bastion  ; to  divide  off  that  space  he  erected  here  in  front  of  the 
anta  the  marble  barrier  which  Wolters  proves  to  have  existed.  This  remained  standing  even  later, 

vegetable  forms.  The  monument  of  those  that  fell  in  the  Corinthian  War  also  belongs  to  this  earlier  stage.  Very 
soon  after  this,  however,  must  have  occurred  the  change  of  type  to  that  of  the  usual  fourth-century  stele.  Cf. 
Samm.  Saboitroff,  i.  Sktilpt.  Introd.  p.  8. 

1 Now  in  Berlin,  Skulpt.  No.  1051  ; a good  copy  of  the  so-called  later  Attic  school.  That  it  is  a question  of 
a copy  only  is  very  clear  from  closer  comparison,  especially  of  the  akanthos. 

2 The  inscription  is  in  C.  I.  A.  ii.  1524.  Kohler  proposes  Avo'iaTpaTos  (369 — 368),  or  KaWlarTparos  (355 — 354). 
But  the  ornamentation  in  itself  shows  the  chair  to  be  of  an  earlier  date.  Then  we  come  to  the  two  archons  named 
Demostratos,  Ol.  96,  4 and  97,  3.  To  distinguish  the  second  from  the  first,  the  name  of  his  deme  used  to  be  added 
(Kohler,  on  C.  I.  A.  ii.  660)  ; thus  we  must  suppose  the  earlier  one  to  be  meant  here. 

3 Cf.  my  statement,  At/i.  Mitth.  iii.  p.  194.  But  I did  not  at  that  time  perceive  the  archaistic  character  of 
the  work,  and  thought  it  was  necessarily  to  be  inferred  that  ‘ an  Alkamenes  ’ worked  in  an  old-fashioned  style  (I 
should  have  said  an  archaistic).  And  in  fact  there  was  only  one  Alkamenes  (cf.  supra,  p.  90).  That  the  numerous 
Attic  repetitions  of  one  and  the  same  type  reproduce  no  other  than  the  work  of  Alkamenes,  the  Hekate  of  the 
TroAiy,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  quite  solitary  and  unimportant  Hekataion  from  Rome  which  Petersen  has 
lately  put  forward  as  that  of  Alkamenes  (Rom.  Mitth.  1889,  p.  73  seq. ) cannot  stand  against  the  weight  of  evidence 
afforded  by  the  above-mentioned  Attic  works  (some  of  which  are  completely  established  as  the  Hekate  of  the 
Akropolis  by  the  addition  of  the  Charites).  The  high  girdles  and  broad  hips  to  which  Petersen  takes  exception 
( Oesterreich . Mitth.  iv.  140  sqq.)  are  details  due  to  the  rather  late  date  at  which  all  those  reproductions  were  made. 
These  are  by  no  means  exact  copies,  as  is  in  fact  shown  by  small  variations  in  many  particulars,  but  only  repeti- 
tions of  the  type  of  the  statue  on  the  bastion.  Similarly  even  the  Parthenos  of  Pheidias  was  carved  in  free  Attic 
reproductions  with  a higher  girdle.  Cf.  also  the  Artemis  in  the  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  vii.  (Arch.  Aitz.)  p.  107. 

4 This  older  type,  too,  was  frequently  reproduced  in  later  times  (cf.  Petersen,  loc.  cit.) 

5 Pausanias  is  clearly  correct  in  his  statement  that  Alkamenes  was  the  first  to  create  the  triple  type  ; this  is 
corroborated  by  the  monuments  which  show  us  no  earlier  form  of  the  type  than  that  which  is  to  be  assigned  to 
Alkamenes. 

6 Ath,  Mitth.  x.  1885,  p.  47.  7 Bonner  Studien,  p.  92  sqq. 


TEMPLE  OF  ATHENA  NIKE 


443 


though  it  might  have  been  discarded  after  the  lowering  of  the  bastion  at  the  time  when  the  temple  of 
Nike  was  built.  It  is  quite  clear,  then,  that  it  was  not  till  after  the  completion  of  the  Propylaia  that 
the  temple  of  Nike  was  planned  and  built  : the  Propylaia  in  their  peculiar  curtailed  condition  were 
already  quite  finished,  and  it  left  them  absolutely  untouched,  merely  offending  against  the  earlier  building 
in  one  point — namely,  that  by  the  lowering  of  the  bastion  a foundation  step  of  the  south-west  wing  was 
laid  bare.  Now  the  holy  place  which  stood  on  the  bastion  at  the  time  that  the  Propylaia  were  built, 
and  which  caused  the  curtailment  of  the  south-west  wing,  was  that  of  the  great  altar  of  Athena  Nike, 
which  kept  its  position  in  later  times  also  ; whether  there  was  already  a temple  behind  it  we  do  not 
know,  but  it  is  very  improbable.1 

The  temple  of  Nike,  then,  is  later  than  the  Propylaia.  We  have  now  to  ask  how  much  later. 
The  erection  of  the  south-west  wing  took  place,  as  we  have  noted,  before  the  temple  of  Nike  was  begun, 
and  this  part  of  the  Propylaia  was  probably  among  the  latest  to  be  built  ; for  it  was  here  that  the  curtail- 
ment of  the  original  design  was  most  extensive,  resulting  in  a finish  towards  the  west  that  was  positively 
ugly.  This  probably  happened  in  the  time  when  the  position  of  Perikles  was  already  shaken,  shortly 
before  the  war,  rather  than  at  the  beginning  of  the  time  of  building.  Thus  there  remains  no  interval 
at  all  before  the  outbreak  of  the  war  within  which  to  date  the  temple  of  Nike.  This  is  confirmed  by 
the  consideration  that  the  Propylaia  themselves  were  not  completed  : the  blocks  were  left  rough  with 
the  bosses  upon  them,  and  the  intended  adornments  were  not  all  executed,  clearly  on  account  of  the 
intervention  of  the  war.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Akroteria,  and  perhaps  sculptures  in  the  pedi- 
ments were  also  intended.2  How  then  could  the  temple  of  Nike  have  been  built  at  that  time 
perfected  as  it  is  to  the  most  delicate  finish,  and  richly  decorated  with  sculptures?  And  what  pretext 
could  there  have  been  just  at  that  time  of  anxious  suspense  for  setting  up  a temple  to  the  goddess  of 
victory,  with  reliefs  commemorating  the  Persian  War  ? Then,  finally,  we  find  that  the  temple  of  Nike 
is  nowhere  cited  among  the  buildings  of  the  time  when  Perikles  was  at  the  head  of  the  state.3  and, 
above  all,  that  it  forms  a contrast  which  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  Propylaia,  the  creation  of  Perikles. 
Already  Kekuld  was  conscious  4 how  discordant  the  small  and  obliquely  placed  toy  temple  is  with  the 
imposing  erection  of  Mnesikles  ; and  Wolters5  also  holds  that  the  remodelling  of  the  shrine  of  Nike 
can  hardly  have  had  the  approval  of  Mnesikles.  In  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  erection  of  the 
little  temple  proceeded  from  the  same  party,  antagonists  of  Perikles,  which  had  previously  ruined  the 
magnificent  but  reckless  project  of  his  architect  for  the  building  of  the  Propylaia.  But  this  party 
must  first  have  been  able  to  point  to  external  successes  of  the  state,  to  victories,  apart  from  which  the 
temple  of  the  goddess  of  victory  would  be  unintelligible. 

The  time  previous  to  the  outbreak  of  the  war  is  excluded,  then,  for  these  reasons,  as  it  already  was 
by  the  considerations  previously  adduced  touching  the  relation  of  the  temple  to  the  Propylaia,  which 
were  themselves  not  yet  completely  finished  before  the  war.  Equally  excluded  are  the  first  years 
of  the  war,  when  Perikles  still  stood  at  the  head  of  affairs,  and  the  time  during  which  the  plague  was 
raging  is  wholly  impossible.  Even  the  period  immediately  after  this  affords  no  event  which  could 
account  for  the  erection.  The  punishment  of  the  revolted  Mytilenaians  is  of  course  out  of  the 
question  ;■  moreover,  Kleon’s  influence  was  at  that  time  quite  predominant.  The  earliest  occasion 
for  the  erection  is  afforded  by  the  prosperous  campaigns  of  Nikias  and  Demosthenes,  in  the  year 
426 — 425,  and  especially  by  the  great  success  of  Demosthenes  in  the  Amphilochian  War.  Here  for  the 

1 [Subsequent  observations  by  Dorpfeld  and  Wolters  (unpublished)  somewhat  modify  the  above  statements  : the 

result,  however,  remains  the  same,  as  I have  lately  convinced.myself  at  Athens. — A.  F.]  With  regard  to  the  altar,  see 
Bohn,  apud  Kekule,  Balustrade,  p.  30,  PI.  8.  The  worship  of  Athena  Nike  is  of  course  ancient,  and  therewith  also 
her  property,  her  ‘ treasure.’  The  existence  of  a treasure  does  not,  however,  in  the  least  imply  that  of  a temple,  since 
the  property  of  the  goddess  could  be  kept  in  any  safe  place  within  the  Citadel.  The  building  of  a temple  was  sure 
to  make  considerable  inroads  upon  the  treasure,  but  could  not  call  it  into  existence.  In  C.  I.  A.  i.  32  (Ol.  86,  2) 
the  general  expression  xP'HP-aTa  ’ Mrtvaias  must  be  regarded  as  including  the  two  subdivisions — (a)  the  money 

of  Polias,  (6)  that  of  Nike  ; these  two  together  make  up  the  amount  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  racial  rrjs 
8eov  to  administer.  In  this  record  there  was  no  reason  at  all  for  indicating  the  subdivision  in  express  terms.  It 
is  different  of  course  in  the  lists  of  sums  given  out  and  calculations  of  interest  belonging  to  the  time  of  the  war  : 
here  the  amounts  belonging  to  the  two  parts  are  entered  separately.  From  C.  I.  A.  i.  273,  iii.  c.  and  iv.  a,  it  is 
clear  that  as  early  as  the  second  year  after  that  inscription  of  01.  86,  2 money  was  lent  from  the  treasure  of  Nike 
also.  This  had  been  kept  as  a part  of  the  xp^para  rrjs  ’Adrivalas  in  the  Opisthodomos  of  the  Parthenon.  — I cannot 
therefore  but  consider  as  unsuccessful  the  attempt  of  Loschcke  ( apud  Kekule,  Bahistrade,  p.  28  ; cf.  Petersen,  in 
Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Oest.  Gymn.  1881,  p.  280)  to  infer  from  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  the  money  of  Nike  as  a 
subdivision  in  C.  I.  A.  i.  32  that  the  worship  of  Nike  was  not  instituted  till  after  434. 

2 There  are  on  the  pediments  the  bases  for  the  Akroteria,  which  never  were  executed  ; cf.  Bohn,  Die  Propylden, 
p.  20.  That  the  pediments  were  not  intended  to  remain  empty  is  in  my  eyes  highly  probable.  In  the  Parthenon 
also  the  groups  of  the  pediment  were  the  last  part  of  the  work  ; in  the  Propylaia  this  point  was  never  reached. 

3 This  has  been  already  brought  out  by  Ross,  Der  Niketempel,  p.  10. 

4 Balustrade,  p.  25.  Petersen  was  wrong  in  combating  this,  Zeitsclir.  fitr  Oesterreicli.  Gy  mu.  1881,  280. 

0 loc.  cit. 


444 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


first  time  a brilliant  victory  over  the  enemy  had  been  achieved.  And  the  men  of  these  successes 
belonged  to  the  conservative  party,1  which,  as  we  saw,  must  have  brought  about  the  building  of  the 
temple  to  Nike.  Demosthenes  came  home  in  triumph  with  three  hundred  panoplies,  which  he  dedi- 
cated in  the  temples  of  Athens.2  His  friend  Nikias,  who  had  met  with  success  in  Boeotia,  devoted 
himself  with  his  party  in  Athens  above  all  to  religious  matters.  There  ensued  the  superstitious  ‘ puri- 
fication’ of  Delos,  and  at  the  same  time  the  magnificent  renewal  of  the  festival  on  the  island,  and  also 
apparently  the  restoration  of  a temple  there.3  We  see  that  the  party  was  strong  and  could  bring 
plans  to  execution  : must  it  not  have  tried  to  set  up  a monument  in  Athens  also? 

This  earliest  possible  date — the  time  after  the  Amphilochian  victory,  425 — is  actually  pointed 
to  by  the  architectural  forms  and  the  decoration,  which  still  completely  accord  with  what  we  find  in 
the  Propylaia,  and  are  somewhat  older  than  those  of  the  Erechtheion.  The  ornaments,  which 
by  the  time  of  the  Erechtheion  are  plastic,  are  on  the  Nike  temple  only  painted,  according  to 
the  older  method.  The  akanthos  and  flower-sprays  of  the  Erechtheion  are  still  unknown.  The 
ornamentation  comprises  only  the  old  motives  of  the  palmette  and  lotos-flower.  The  capital  is  on 
the  model  of  the  Ionic  capital  of  the  Propylaia.4  Yet  one  detail  clearly  shows  that  it  is  the  later,  and 
in  itself  defeats  any  attempt  to  make  the  temple  older  than  the  Propylaia.  The  palmettes  which 
terminate  the  volutes  already  project  somewhat  over  the  egg-and-tongue  moulding  of  the  kymation, 
and  the  leaves  of  these  palmettes  already  depart  essentially  from  the  strictly  conventional  representa- 
tion on  the  Propylaia,  displaying  a more  naturalistic  treatment  approaching  that  of  the  palmettes  on 
the  Erechtheion.5  Thus  architecturally  the  temple  of  Nike  comes  between  those  two  buildings.  B.c.  425 
is  accordingly  a suitable  date  ; then,  after  the  Peace  of  Nikias  (421),  followed  the  Erechtheion. 

Now  that  we  have  reached  this  point  in  our  investigations  we  can  derive  considerable  aid  from 
an  inscribed  fragment  of  a stele  from  the  Akropolis  6 belonging  to  the  time  about  350 — 320  : it 
informs  us  of  a commission  named  for  the  purpose  of  managing  the  restoration  of  the  statue 
of  Athena  Nike,  which  was  set  up  by  the  Athenians  from  the  victory  over  the  Ambrakiots,  the 
array  at  Olpai,  and  the  Kerkyraian  oligarchs,  i.e.  from  the  victory  of  Demosthenes  in  the 
Amphilochian  War.  This  exact  designation  of  the  statue  is  clearly  taken  from  the  dedicatory 
inscription  itself.7  On  account  of  the  restoration  of  the  image  a sin-offering  to  the  goddess  is  decreed, 
to  be  performed  by  the  priestess  of  Athena  herself.  U.  Kohler,  to  whom  we  owe  the  explanation  of 
this  important  record,  supposes  the  statue  in  question  to  have  been  some  bronze  figure  on  the  Citadel. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  an  image,  after  standing  for  a comparatively  short  time,  could  have 
required  a comprehensive  restoration,  since  bronzes  do  not  suffer  from  standing  in  the  open  air,  and 
no  event  destructive  of  monuments  had  taken  place  in  that  period  on  the  Akropolis.  But  the  matter 
would  become  completely  intelligible  if  the  image  was  of  wood,  perhaps  partially  covered  with  gold 
and  ivory.  Moreover,  the  whole  elaborate  preparation — the  specially  nominated  commission,  the 
solemn  sin-offering  performed  by  Athena’s  priestess — points  to  the  conclusion  that  we  are  here 
concerned  with  a temple  image.  Now  the  date  and  occasion  we  arrived  at  for  the  temple  of  Nike 
are  the  same  which  the  inscription  mentions  for  a statue  of  Nike.  This  gives  excellent  support  and 
corroboration.  The  statue  is  no  other  than  the  temple  image  for  which  the  little  building  was  set  up. 
The  periegete  Heliodoros  8 spoke  of  it  as  a £6avov  ; therefore  it  was  a wooden  image,  but  consisting 
undoubtedly,  as  was  customary  at  this  period,  of  more  precious  materials  also,  such  as  gold  or  ivory,  or 
even  marble.9  The  inscription  calls  it  simply  «yaA/xa,  which  is  in  fact  the  ordinary  designation  for  the 
Parthenos  also  in  the  official  records.  The  image  was  doubtless  the  principal  object  in  the  little  temple 

1 Demosthenes,  it  is  true,  was  wholly  a soldier,  and  no  politician  ; but  still  the  party  with  which  he  stood  was 
clearly  that  of  Nikias.  In  the  Knights  of  Aristophanes  (424  B.C.)  the  two  of  them,  Demosthenes  and  Nikias,  are 
slaves  with  the  ‘ Paphlagonian’  Kleon. 

2 Thuc.  iii.  1 14. 

3 Cf.  Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  363.  The  Akroteria,  which  I have  reconstructed  (ibid.  p.  335  sqq. ),  seem  to  belong  to 
the  same  period.  The  small  temple  on  the  Ilissos  is  also  shown  by  the  agreement  of  its  architectural  forms  w'ith 
those  of  the  temple  of  Nike  (cf.  Ross-Hansen-Schaubert,  Niketempel,  p.  1 1 ; Puchstein,  D.  Ion.  Kapitdl,  p.  14) 
to  belong  to  the  same  period.  It  wras  no  doubt  intended  for  the  worship  of  Demeter  in  Agrai.  The  building  of 
the  temple  was  probably  accompanied  by  a renewal  of  the  old  festival  of  the  Lesser  Mysteries.  This  fits 
excellently  into  the  picture  of  the  time  when  Nikias  was  in  the  ascendant. 

4 Cf.  Puchstein,  loc.  cit.  p.  14  sqq. 

5 In  the  original  or  a cast  this  distinction  is  still  clearer  than  in  the  reproductions. 

j Published,  restored,  and  explained  by  U.  Kohler  in  Hermes,  xxvi.  (1891),  p.  43  sqq. 

7 Cf.  Kohler,  loc.  cit.  48.  8 Apud  Harpokration,  Ni/rrj  ' Mr\va. 

9 We  know  of  two  works  by  Damophon  expressly  designated  as  £ Aava , which  had  face  and  hands  of  marble  ; 
Paus.  vii.  23,  5,  viii.  31,  6.  The  Athena  Areia  at  Plataia  ascribed  to  Pheidias  was  a t,6avov,  and  moreover 
iirixpoaov,  but  had  face,  hands,  and  feet  of  marble  (Paus.  ix.  4,  1).  An  inscription  of  Delos  belonging  to  the 
second  or  first  century  B.c.  testifies  to  a £havov  of  yet  later  date  : Lebegue,  Rec lurches  a Delos,  p.  160 : Xap/npo? 

. . uve0T)Ke  £6avov. 


IMAGE  OF  ATHENA  NIKE 


445 


of  Nike  ; this  was  simply  the  aedicula  for  the  image,  which  apparently  stood  in  the  centre,1 
with  only  a narrow  passage  left  vacant  round  it.  The  dedicatory  inscription  for  image  and  aedicula 
was  graven  on  the  pedestal  of  the  image,  and  we  have  an  abridgment  of  it  in  the  above-mentioned 
record. 

Thus  the  only  two  statues  of  Athena  Nike  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge2 — that  of  the 
inscription  and  that  for  which  we  have  literary  evidence  as  existing  in  the  temple  of  Nike — are 
identical.  This  conclusion  appears  to  me  quite  inevitable,  and  it  is  no  objection  to  it  that  the  image 
in  the  building  is  a ‘temple  image,’  and  that  of  the  inscription  a ‘ votive  offering.’  This  distinction 
does  not  belong  to  ancient  times,  if  it  implies  that  a temple  image  was  not  also  a votive  offering  that 
could  be  designated  as  such.  There  is  a sufficient  number  of  passages  in  ancient  writers  expressly 
speaking  of  a temple  with  its  image  as  a votive  offering  after  a definite  event  ; and  we  suppose  that 
the  temple  of  Nike  and  its  image  belong  to  the  class  which  we  find  attested  in  these  cases.3  Every 
temple  image  is  a votive  offering  to  the  deity  ; and  the  ritual  at  the  solemn  iBpvais  of  a temple 
image  seems,  from  all  the  indications  we  possess,  to  have  differed  only  in  degree  from  that  which 
accompanied  the  dvddecns  of  an  ordinary  ex-voto.4 

The  dedicatory  inscription  of  Athena  Nike,  as  preserved  in  the  record  mentioned  above, 
possesses  yet  another  point  of  special  interest.  Among  the  enemies  defeated,  the  Ambrakiots 
and  Kerkyraians  are  designated  by  name,  but  the  Peloponnesians  are  called  simply  fj  lv  "OXnais 
o-TpciTid.  The  only  possible  reason  for  this,  as  it  seems  to  us,  is  an  intention  to  spare  their 
feelings,  i.e.,  in  other  words,  the  dedicatory  inscription  was  drawn  up  according  to  the 
proposal  of  the  party  of  Nikias,  which  always  aimed  at  peace  with  the  Lakedaimonians.  The 
wording  of  the  inscription,  then,  excellently  corroborates  the  conclusion  already  reached,  that 
the  temple  of  Nike  owes  its  origin  to  Nikias  and  his  party.  Again,  the  tendencies  of  these 
people  are  expressed  in  all  the  works  of  art  belonging  to  the  temple.  The  statue  of  Athena 
itself  shows  her  as  the  goddess  of  peace,  not  only  by  the  motive  already  known  to  us  from 
the  Athena  Lemnia,  the  bearing  of  her  helmet  in  her  hand,  but  above  all  by  the  absence 
of  the  spear,  and  the  attribute  of  the  pomegranate  in  the  other  hand.  The  pomegranate 
strikes  us  as  strange  at  this  period  ; it  is  a distinctly  archaistic  motive.  In  early  art,  it  is  the 
favourite  attribute  for  all  goddesses  connected  with  peace,  with  the  promotion  of  fruitfulness 
and  growth ; in  the  case  of  Athena,  we  can  point  to  only  one  or  two  instances  on  vases 
of  earlier  times.5  After  what  we  know,  however,  as  to  the  art  affected  in  the  circle  of  Nikias, 
we  must  not  any  longer  be  at  all  astonished  at  an  archaism  in  an  image  of  a god.  We  may 
even  conjecture  that  the  whole  work  was  strongly  archaistic  in  tone.  And  we  now  remember 
that,  in  the  archaistic  reliefs  which  we  traced  back  to  the  tendency  represented  by  Kallimachos, 
Athena  appeared  quite  regularly  as  a goddess  of  peace,  with  her  helmet  in  her  hand.  There 
is  much,  then,  to  suggest  that  the  £davov  of  the  temple  of  Nike  was  also  a work  by 
Kallimachos. 

But  not  less  clear  is  the  evidence  given  by  the  frieze  of  the  temple.  The  combats  which 
we  there  see  represented  are  not  taken  from  the  present,  from  the  war  against  the  Pelopon- 
nesians, but  from  the  time  of  the  great  national  struggle  of  Hellas  against  the  Persians,  the 
time  of  which  Miltiades  and  Aristeides0  were  the  heroes— from  that  past  to  which  those 

1 Landron,  apud  Le  Bas  ( Voyage  Arch.,  Archit.  Ath'enes,  PI.  2)  makes  the  image  stand  in  the  centre,  probably 
from  traces  on  the  floor. 

- The  Nike  in  bronze  dedicated  on  the  Citadel  after  the  victory  of  Sphakteria,  in  the  summer  of  425  (Paus.  iv. 
36,  6),  was  equally  a Nike  (probably  similar  to  that  of  Paionios),  but  not  an  Athena  Nike. 

3 e.g.  Paus.  i.  18,  6,  Hadrian  dviQi]Kc  the  Olympieion  with  its  image;  v.  10,  2,  the  temple  of  Zeus  and  the 
image  were  set  up  at  Olympia  out  of  the  spoil  of  Pisa  ; i.  14,  5,  the  vabs  EiurAei'as  at  Athens  is  an  avad-q^a.  dirb 
MriSav  ; the  Heraion  at  Olympia  was  an  dvadruxa  2/ciAAoiu'tiW  according  to  Agaklytos  apud  Suidas,  Kiu|/eA.  dvd.0.  ; 
Anthol.  Palat.  6,  53,  EvS-qp-os  t bv  vqbv  ...-rivV  avedqKcr  r<?  ...Zttpvpy.  Cf.  also  the  story  concerning  Perikles  in 
Plutarch,  Per.  14,  where  he  proposes  to  inscribe  his  name  on  the  dua0-qp.aTa,  i.e.  particularly  the  Parthenon  and 
its  image  : there  is  a similar  story  concerning  Alexander  and  the  temple  at  Ephesos. 

4 The  principal  symbols  of  dedication  and  consecration  were  always  woollen  fillets,  branches,  garlands,  also 
oil  and  anointing,  and  sprinkling  with  water.  At  an  'tSpvius  offerings  of  food  were  also  used  with  the  intention 
of  attracting  the  numen  of  the  deity  to  the  place  (this  is  clear  from  Aristoph.  Plat.  1197  with  the  scholia).  This 
important  circumstance  is  completely  passed  over  even  in  the  newest  handbook  of  ancient  sacred  ceremonies 
(Stengel). 

5 I have  mentioned  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon  (i.  col.  689,  1.  39)  an  Attic  Oinochoe  of  the  later  black-figured  period 
at  Altenburg,  which  shows  Athena  seated  with  the  pomegranate  in  her  left  hand.  Cf.  with  it  the  Lekythos  of 
circa  500 — 480,  given  by  Kekule,  Balustr.  p.  25,  and  Arch.  Ztg.  1885,  PI.  12,  2.  Benndorf’s  attempt  to  derive  the 
pomegranate  from  Side  has  been  already  refuted  by  Kekule. 

c That  these  two  names  just  summed  up  in  themselves  the  ideals  of  the  conservative  peace  party  is  shown 
by  the  beautiful  passage  of  the  Knights  of  Aristophanes,  v.  1316  sqq.,  1325  ; this  play  is  contemporary  with  the 
building  of  the  temple  of  Nike. 


446 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


who  followed  Nikias’s  way  of  thinking,  and  shrank  from  the  war  with  Sparta,  looked  as  their 
ideal. 

In  the  detailed  interpretation  of  the  frieze  it  is  true  that  unanimity  of  opinion  has  not  been 
attained.  All  that  is  undoubted  is  that  the  long  sides  represented  combats  of  Greeks  and 
Persians.  The  west  side  shows  Greeks  fighting  against  Greeks,  the  east  side  an  assemblage  of 
gods.  But  W.  Vischer  and  Overbeck  have  already  rightly  shown1  that  the  four  sides  must  of 
necessity  be  interpreted  as  a single  whole.2  The  reliefs  run  without  a break  round  the  whole 
temple,  just  as  in  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon.  They  must,  like  it,  represent  a single  action.  And 
this,  as  has  been  already  recognized  by  these  writers,  can  be  no  other  than  the  battle  of  Plataia. 
The  view  has  also  been  advocated  that  only  a ‘ general  representation  of  all  the  combats  of  the 
past’  is  intended, 3 but  this  seems  to  me  foreign  to  ancient  notions.  It  is  a mistaken  conception 
of  the  ideal  character  of  Greek  art  that  ascribes  to  it  such  obscure  and  confused  generalizations. 
No  evidence  for  the  battle  of  Plataia  is  to  be  found,  as  Overbeck  imagined,  in  the  supposed 
Boeotian  form  of  helmet  on  the  west  side;4  but  there  is  evidence  in  the  intentional  arrangement 
which  places  the  combit  of  Greeks  at  the  west  end  as  a distinct  integral  part  of  the  battle,  between 

the  two  principal  combats  against  the  Persians. 
This  suits  no  other  battle  than  Plataia,  and  suits 
it  excellently. 

That  battle,  as  is  well  known,  was  broken 
up  into  a number  of  encounters  distinct  in  time 
and  place.  Of  course  we  must  expect  to  find 
special  emphasis  laid  on  the  part  played  by  the 
Athenians.  They  could  boast  of  two  successful 
actions  : one,  of  which  they  were  especially  proud, 
took  place  quite  at  the  beginning,5  when  three 
hundred  picked  men  of  the  Athenians,  led  by 
Olympiodoros,  son  of  Lampon,  voluntarily  under- 
took to  oppose  the  Persian  cavalry  under  Masistios, 
the  other  Greeks  having  refused  to  do  so.  The 
most  momentous  episode  of  this  fight,  which  made 
a powerful  impression  on  both  sides,  was  the  death  of  the  brilliant  Persian  leader  Masistios. 
His  Nisaian  horse  was  wounded  in  the  side,  reared  high  on  his  hind  legs,  and  threw  his  rider, 
whom  the  Athenians  then  killed.  An  exact  illustration  of  this  incident  related  by  Herodotos 
is  to  be  found  in  the  slab  in  the  left  corner  of  the  south  frieze  (Fig.  1 8 1 ).  Here  a Persian  more 
richly  dressed  than  the  rest — the  story  speaks  of  the  rich  robe  of  Masistios — is  falling  from  a 
horse  who  rears  up  and  has  evidently  been  wounded  in  the  side.  This  group  is  not,  like  many 
others  in  the  frieze,  of  a typical  nature,  and  so  far  as  I know  it  nowhere  recurs  in  this  form  ; 
it  has  a thoroughly  individual  character,  which  is  excellently  explained  by  the  episode  of 
Masistios.  On  the  next  slabs  of  the  south  side  was  carved  the  continuation  of  the  fight 
of  the  Athenians  against  the  Persian  cavalry.  If  we  accept  the  arrangement  of  the  slabs 
advocated  by  Kekule6 — and  there  is  much  that  favours  it7 — the  battle  here  is  much  more  exclu- 
sively a cavalry  engagement  than  is  the  case  according  to  the  arrangement  proposed  by 
Ross.  The  west  side,  again,  undoubtedly  represents  the  second  combat  of  the  Athenians — 
namely,  the  share  which  they  took  in  the  main  action  by  fighting  with  the  Hellenes  on  the 
Persian  side,  especially  the  Thebans.  This  was  a very  fierce  conflict.  The  inscription  on  the 
golden  shield  dedicated  by  the  Athenians  at  Delphi  after  the  battle  even  ran : cm o Mjjfiow  «ai 

1 W.  Vischer,  Erinnerungen  und  Eindriicke  aus  Griechenland,  p.  131.  Overbeck  in  Bergk’s  and  Casar’s 
Zeitschr.  fiir  die  A Iterth umswissensch . 1857,  p.  289  sqq.  ; Gescli.  d.  P/astik,  3rd  ed.  i.  363  sqq. 

2 This  overthrows  also  the  most  recent  interpretation  proposed  by  Yorke  {/.  H.  S.  xiii.  279)  ; he  holds  that 
Marathon,  Salamis,  and  Plataia  are  represented.  The  battle  by  the  ships  at  Marathon  he  supposes  not  to  have 
been  indicated  from  want  of  space  (!) 

3 Friederichs,  Bausteine,  p.  189  ( = Fr.-Wolters,  p.  283). 

4 The  ‘ pilos  ’-shaped  helmet  is  not  specially  Boeotian,  as  has  been  already  noted  by  Friederichs,  loc.  cit. 
The  upavos  lioiuTiovpyis  recommended  by  Xenophon  (De  Re  Eques.  12,  3)  to  horsemen  may  indeed  be  judged 
from  the  description  to  have  had  the  ‘pilos’  shape,  but  this  does  not  imply  that  it  was  specially  Boeotian, 
since  it  was  much  used  by  other  Greeks  also. 

5 Herodotos,  ix.  20- — 24.  Cf.  Busolt,  Gnech.  Gesch.  ii.  197  sqq. 

6 Kekule,  Balustr.  (1869),  p.  17. 

7 The  correspondence  of  the  slabs  G and  O (Ross)  is  such  that  one  would  be  decidedly  inclined  to  bring 
them  to  one  side.  Kekule’s  proposed  arrangement  for  the  south  side  produces  a fine  composition  complete  in 
itself. 


FRIEZE  OF  THE  TEMPLE  OF  NIKE 


447 


Qrjfialav}  The  third,  northern,  side  probably  referred  to  the  main  action  of  the  Lakedai- 
monians  and  Tegeans  against  the  Persians,  and  to  the  conclusion  of  the  whole.  Unfortunately 
there  is  but  very  little  extant  on  this  side,  if  we  follow,  as  seems  best,  Kekule's  arrangement 
of  the  slabs.  To  it  belong  the  fragments  of  Slab  f.  (Ross),  which  shows  the  Greeks 
fighting  against  infantry.  Their  opponents  are  draped,  and  are  probably  Persians ; but, 
unfortunately,  decisive  indications  are  wholly  wanting.  To  this  side  belongs  moreover  Slab  m. 
(Fig.  182),  where  on  the  left  appear  indistinct  remains  of  fallen  figures.  We  see  a draped 
man,  who  is  therefore  probably  a Persian ; then  follows  a Greek,  who  seems  to  be  striking 
down  at  him  from  above  with  a spear ; with  his  right  foot  he  treads  on  a head,1 2  which  is 
severed  from  the  naked  corpse  lying  stretched  out  beside  it  ; 3 this  corpse  appears  to  have 
been  stripped  and  mutilated.  Next  follow  two  Greeks  hurrying  at  a run  towards  the  right ; in 
front  of  them  a Greek  in  a chiton4  has  his  left  knee  resting  on  a mound  of  earth,  below  which 
lies  a draped  and  bearded  corpse;  to  judge  by  the  outline  of  the  head  the  latter  is  a Persian;5 
the  Greek  was  clearly  purposing  to  spoil  the  corpse  ; he  is  hindered  in  this  by  a Greek  who 
opposes  him,  laying  hold  of  him  so  vigorously  with  his  left  hand  that  the  helmet  falls  from  his 
head.  Behind  this  attacking  Greek  two  riderless  horses  are  galloping  away.  Thus  we  get  the 
following  points  : Battle  of  the  Greeks  with  Persian  infantry.  The  Greeks  are  victorious.  They 
are  hastening  at  a run,  probably  in  pursuit  of  the  fugitives,  over  the  field  of  battle.  The  field 
is  full  of  corpses,  which  are  being  plundered.  But  the  retreat  of  the  enemy  is  not  wholly 
uncovered  : it  is  being  protected  by  Greek  allies,  apparently  cavalry  ; they,  however,  are  also 


being  overthrown,  so  that  the  riderless  horses  leap  away.  All  this,  too,  answers  to  the  battle  of 
Plataia  ; the  principal  action  was  that  of  Lakedaimonians  and  Tegeans  against  the  Persian  foot. 
The  Persians  fled  to  the  camp,  the  Greeks  pursued,  no  resistance  being  offered  except  by  the 
cavalry,  especially  that  of  the  Boeotians6  (this  accounts  for  the  Greek  beside  the  galloping 
horses).  They  made  their  way  in  spite  of  this  opposition  to  the  camp,  which  was  then  taken, 
the  Athenians  especially  helping  in  the  capture.  It  is  possible  that  a slab  is  lost  which  came 
next  and  indicated  the  storming  of  the  camp.  Of  the  last  slab,  which  came  next  beyond,  we 
have  still  some  slight  remains.  Here  there  is  no  longer  any  battle.  As  in  the  east  frieze  of  the 
Theseion  at  the  right-hand  end  there  appear  tranquil  figures,  evidently  indicating  the  results  of 
the  battle,  so  here  we  see  first  of  all  a low  podium,  and  upon  it  apparently  the  foot  of  some 
piece  of  furniture,  shaped  like  the  claws  of  a wild  beast,7  then  the  lower  part  of  a large  vessel; 
towards  these  a figure  is  running — there  remain  parts  of  the  bare  lower  portion  of  his  legs  ; 8 

1 Aeschin.  in  Ctes.  116. 

2 This  cannot  be  seen  in  the  reproductions  ; the  foot  treads  on  the  face. 

3 '1  he  head  lies  in  quite  a different  line  from  the  body,  and  also  too  far  away  to  be  considered  otherwise  than 
as  severed  from  the  corpse.  On  the  latter  there  is  only  a small  cloth  between  the  legs.  The  right  arm  also  seems 
to  have  been  hacked  off. 

4 The  Corinthian  helmet  that  is  falling  from  his  head  proves  him  irrefutably  to  be  a Greek. 

5 Only  the  outlines  can  now  be  seen,  since  the  figure  is  much  injured.  The  way  in  which  the  head  is  placed 
on  the  shoulders  and  the  outline  of  the  beard  are  quite  similar  to  what  we  see  in  the  Persians  of  the  frieze. 
Trousers  cannot  now  be  made  out. 

6 Herod,  ix.  68. 

7 Clearer  in  the  drawing  by  Landron,  apnd  Le  Bas,  than  in  Ross.  I have  been  obliged  to  depend  on  the 
publications  for  this  slab,  as  there  is  no  cast. 

8 Landron  gives  a small  fragment  remaining  of  the  left  foot,  which  is  placed  far  back. 


448 


THE  TEMPLES  OE  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


then  follow  the  legs  of  a boy  who  is  standing  still.  After  the  battle  there  was  erected,  as  is 
well  known,  an  altar  to  Zeus  Eleutherios,  and  a festival  instituted,  to  be  repeated  every  fifth 
year,  at  which  there  was  a contest  of  runners  who  ran  armed  before  the  altar.1  This,  I am 
inclined  to  infer  from  the  remains,  was  indicated  on  the  slab  : on  the  left  a step  of  the  altar, 
or  the  basis  of  the  holy  table  of  Zeus,  in  front  of  it  a great  krater,  pertaining  to  the  festival,2 
and  then  perhaps  a representative  of  the  armed  youths  running  in  honour  of  the  god. 

The  assembled  gods  on  the  east  side  are  to  be  understood  just  in  the  same  way  as  the  deities  that 
in  the  frieze  of  the  Theseion  appear  among  the  combatants  : they  are  taking  an  interest  in  the  battle, 
and  it  is  they  who  bestow  the  victory.  There  on  the  Theseion,  where  there  was  only  a single  side 
at  the  artist’s  disposal,  they  are  introduced  at  two  suitable  places  in  the  battle  itself ; here,  where  the 
representation  extends  round  the  four  sides  of  the  temple,  a whole  side  is  reserved  for  them.  We 
must  of  course  suppose  complete  unity  of  time,  and  the  gods  can  only  be  conceived  as  present  at  the 
battle.3  From  this  alone  it  is  clear  that  the  latest  interpretation  put  upon  the  east  frieze  by  Bruno 
Sauer4  cannot  be  correct  : he  considers  that  we  have  here  a trial  scene,  taking  place  previous  to  the 
expedition  of  Dareios.  Hellas  sits  on  the  defendant’s  bench,  Asia  is  the  plaintiff,  the  Greek  gods  are 
the  judges,  who  are  to  declare  their  sentence  by  means  of  voting  tablets.  A maiden  on  the  right  acts 
as  ‘herald  of  the  court,’  and  summons  any  of  the  public  to  come  forward  before  the  assembled  judges 
and  speak  on  behalf  of  the  defendant.  This  strange  interpretation,  however,  rests  at  its  very  outset 
on  a false  conception.  How  could  Asia  enter  a complaint  against  Hellas  with  the  Greek  gods,  and 
how  could  these  be  the  impartial  judges  of  their  own  land  ? This  is  quite  opposed  to  ancient  thought. 
The  Hellenic  gods  can  only  be  on  the  side  of  Hellas.5 6  Asia  is  hurled  to  ruin  through  her  arrogance 
and  blindness,0  through  her  contempt  for  the  Hellenic  gods  and  their  laws.  Even  before  the  battle, 
according  to  the  Greek  conception,7  the  decree  of  the  gods  against  the  Persians  is  fixed,  and, 
according  to  Herodotos,  Mardonios  himself  knew  of  an  oracle  to  the  effect  that  the  Persians  must 
be  overthrown  in  Hellas.8  Equally  impossible  are  all  the  details  of  the  interpretation.  The  name  of 
Hellas  is  given  to  a figure  who  turns  her  head  away  from  the  gods  in  the  centre  of  the  frieze, 
whereas  the  only  possible  representation  of  her  would  be  as  suppliant  and  protegbe  of  Zeus  and 
Athena,  as  she  appears  on  the  vases.  And  Asia  is  supposed  to  be  sitting  enthroned  among  the  Greek 
gods  as  though  she  belonged  to  them.  And  where  is  there  a trace  of  an  indication  that  the  gods 
intend  to  advance  to  the  urn  and  deliver  voting  pebbles  ? Of  the  names  which  Sauer  proposes  for 
the  individual  gods,  there  is  especial  reason  to  doubt  those  of  sea  and  earth,  Thalassa  and  Gaia, 
which  he  gives  to  two  corresponding  and  entirely  similar  female  figures  : they  must  at  least  have  been 
different  from  each  other ; and,  as  a matter  of  fact,  Gaia  was  at  that  time  regularly  represented  as 
rising  up  from  the  earth.9  It  is,  however,  a downright  mistake  to  divide  off  Fig.  8 in  the  left  half  of 
the  frieze  from  the  group  to  which  she  necessarily  belongs  in  view  of  the  motive  and  the  corre- 
spondence with  the  other  side,  and  to  make  her  act  Ate  or  Eris  to  the  supposed  Asia  (Fig.  7).  The 
centre  has  three  figures  (Poseidon,  Athena,  Zeus)  ; on  either  side  of  these  is  a group  of  five  standing 
deities,  each  group  divided  into  two  pairs  and  a single  central  figure  : the  symmetrical  arrangement 
is  very  clear  : it  is  therefore  inadmissible  to  dissever  a member  of  the  group  on  either  side.  Then 
follows  in  each  half  a sitting  personage,  and  several  maidens  in  rapid  motion  towards  the  centre  ; on 
the  left  are  three  ; on  the  right  only  two  are  preserved  ; 10  but  symmetry,  which  has  been  regarded 
hitherto,  demands  three  maidens  here  also.  It  is  clear  that  in  this  Olympian  assemblage  we  have 
before  us  two  of  those  triple  sisterhoods  of  divine  maidens  which  from  old  times — we  may  instance 
the  Moirai,  Horai,  and  Charites  of  the  Fran5ois  vase — artists  were  fond  of  introducing  into 

1 Beovff  1 Se  &nrAur/j.ei'oc  7r pb  tov  ^afxov,  Paus.  ix.  2,  6. 

2 Cf.  c.g.  the  sacred  table  with  a krater  in  front  of  Dionysos  (Mon.  d.  Inst.  6,  PI.  5 b ).  At  the  yearly 
feast  of  1 he  dead  held  by  the  graves  on  the  battle-field  of  Plataia,  a krater  was  set  up,  from  which  the  Archon 
poured  libations  (Plut.  Aristeid.  21). 

3 I can  think  of  no  argument  to  be  brought  against  this  natural  supposition,  and  do  not  understand  why 
Wolters,  Gipsabg.  p.  284,  assumes  that  the  east  side  is  ‘ certainly  ’ to  be  separated  from  the  others. 

4 Aus der Anomia,  1890,  p.  96  sqq.,  ‘das  Gottergericht  fiber  Asia  und  Hellas.’  Kopp  (Arch.  Anzeiger,  1892, 
p.  128)  adopts  his  interpretation  ‘ in  the  main.’ 

5 Only  the  deities  Helios  and  Selene,  whom  the  barbarians  worshipped,  are  conceived  in  the  Peace  of 
Aristophanes  (406  sqq. ) as  conspiring  against  Hellas.  The  Peace  is  of  about  the  same  date  as  the  Nike  frieze. 

6 Apate  on  the  Darius  Vase,  and  in  Aischylos. 

7 Clearly  seen  in  Herod,  ix.  16. 

8 Herod,  ix.  42.  Mardonios  does  indeed  sacrifice  before  Plataia  according  to  the  Greek  rite  (ibid.  37),  but  he 
does  not  trouble  himself  with  the  way  in  which  the  sacrifice  turns  out  (ibid.  41). 

9 The  Greek  representations  of  Gaia  as  a whole  figure,  conjectured  by  Kuhnert  in  Roscher’s  Lexikon,  i. 
1575  -W-j  are  all  very  uncertain. 

10  Sauer  (loc.  cit.  p.  102  seq. ) has  shown  from  their  motives  that  they  have  no  specially  close  relation  to  the 
sitting  figures. 


FRIEZE  OF  THE  TEMPLE  OF  NIKE 


449 


processions  of  the  gods.  The  swift  dance-like  advance  would  be  specially  appropriate  for  Nymphs, 
Horai  and  Charites,  whom  we  are  inclined  to  suggest  as  most  probable  here.  The  immediate 
proximity  of  Aphrodite  makes  it  likely  that  the  group  on  the  left  ought  to  be  identified  as 
Charites. 

Starting  from  our  conception  of  an  assemblage  of  the  deities  interested  in  the  battle  of 
Plataia,  we  venture  a step  further  in  explaining  details,  though  it  is  improbable  that  the  figures 
of  a work  so  much  mutilated  can  ever  all  be  named.  The  principal  action,  the  encounter  of 
Lakedaimonians  and  Tegeans  with  the  Persians,  which  we  conjecture  to  have  been  represented 
on  the  north  side,  took  place  by  a shrine  of  the  Eleusinian  Demeter  ; and  this,  in  fact,  as  the 
‘ soil  of  the  Eleusinian  Demeter  ’ on  which  the  battle  was  to  take  place,  plays  its  part  in  the 
oracle  of  which  Plutarch  tells  us  as  having  been  given  to  Aristeides  (. Arist . n).  This  being  so, 
there  is  a special  fitness  in  the  group  of  Demeter  and  Kore  placed  in  the  right  half  of  the 
frieze — towards  the  north.1  But  the  oracle  gives  us  yet  further  hints : it  promises  the  victory 
when  prayers  are  offered  to  Zeus,  to  Hera  Kithaironia,  to  Pan,  and  the  nymphs  Sphragitides. 
Zeus  and  Hera  are  undoubtedly  in  the  frieze.  But  we  can  now  go  further,  and  pronounce  that 
the  maidens  hastening  forward  on  the  right  are  the  nymphs  Sphragitides.  In  fact,  it  was  in 
this  fashion,  with  hovering  advance,  as  it  were,  that  nymphs  generally  appeared  in  votive  reliefs 
also.  Pan  is  to  be  looked  for  quite  close  to  them  : we  may  safely  conjecture  him  to 
have  been  on  the  right,  at  the  missing  end  of  the  frieze,  where  he  formed  an  appropriate 
pendant  to  Aphrodite  on  the  left.  Sauer  indeed  imagined  that  the  second  figure  behind  Zeus 
was  Pan,  but  this  is  impossible  from  the  whole  type  of  the  figure.2  On  the  other  hand,  neither 
this  nor  the  other  two  standing  male  figures  of  the  frieze  can  be  reconciled  with  the  types  of 
the  greater  gods — Apollo,  Hermes,  Ares,  Dionysos,  and  we  must  apparently  suppose  them  to  be 
heroes.  Now  it  just  happens  that  the  oracle  we  mentioned  commanded  sacrifice  to  be  made  to 
various  Plataian  heroes,  first  and  foremost  to  Androkrates,  by  whose  shrine  the  Greeks  had 
taken  up  their  position  at  the  beginning.3  We  may  probably  suppose  him  to  be  the  man  near 
Hera.  The  corresponding  hero  on  the  other  side  Sauer  was  probably  right  in  identifying  as 
Theseus.  And  he  is  also  right  no  doubt  when  he  regards  the  object  visible  in  front  of  Zeus 
as  a table  very  much  foreshortened  ; but  for  a voting  urn,  such  as  he  goes  on  to  suppose, 
there  was  evidently  no  place  upon  that  table.  It  was  a sacred  table,  like  that  brazen  trapeza 
which  stood  in  front  of  Zeus  Polieus  on  the  Akropolis,  and  upon  which  the  sacrificial  ox  was 
offered  at  the  Bouphonia.4  On  the  north  side  also  we  saw,  as  we  thought,  a sacred  table  of 
Zeus  ELeuthereus  ; we  may  suppose  garlands  for  the  victors  in  the  contests  to  have  lain  upon 
it.  Thus  a similar  table  would  be  very  suitable  here  on  the  east  side,  as  an  indication  of  the 
victory  bestowed  by  this  Zeus  the  Deliverer. 

But  why  was  the  battle  of  Plataia  in  particular  chosen  for  our  temple  of  Athena  Nike?  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  tendency  of  Nikias  and  his  peace  party  manifests  itself  nowhere  more  clearly  than  in 
this  choice.  Plataia  was  just  that  battle  in  which  Athenians  still  fought  side  by  side  with  Lakedai- 
monians in  friendly  union.  And  this  was  the  political  ideal  of  Nikias’s  party — agreement  with  the 
foes,  in  order,  as  Aristophanes  expresses  it  in  the  Peace  (1082), 5 to  share  with  them  the  rule  of  Hellas 
(1 <0ivrj  TTjs  ’EAXdSoy  a'p^ety).  Thus,  instead  of  representing  the  victorious  battles  against  Pelo- 
ponnesians and  Ambrakiots,  the  frieze  transports  us  back  to  the  good  old  days  when  Athens  and 
Sparta  fought  as  comrades  at  the  head  of  Hellas  against  the  national  foe. 

If  we  suppose  that  the  building  was  not  very  rapidly  executed,  the  frieze,  which  probably  was  not 
taken  in  hand  till  towards  the  end  of  the  work,  may  quite  well  belong  to  as  late  a date  as  about  423, 
i.e.  to  the  time  when  (in  the  spring  of  423)  Nikias  and  his  adherents  brought  about  a year’s  armistice 
with  Sparta,  of  which  use  was  made  for  serious  peace  negotiations.  The  meaning  of  our  frieze  would 
be  especially  clear  if  it  originated  then.6  But  even  in  425  the  inclination  for  peace  was  sufficiently 


1 Quite  correctly  identified  by  Sauer,  p.  104,  following  Kekule. 

2 Sauer  is  inaccurate  in  his  statement  (p.  101)  that  only  the  upper  part  of  the  leg,  not  the  lower,  is  attached 
to  the  background  ; a good  way  below  the  point  at  which  the  knee  must  be  placed,  as  far  down  as  the  place 
where  the  calf  begins  to  grow  thinner  in  a human  leg,  it  is  attached  to  the  background  ; this  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  supposition  of  a goat’s  leg.  Moreover,  the  attitude,  and  above  all  the  long  robe  on  the  left  arm,  are 
quite  unsuitable  for  Pan. 

3 Herod,  ix.  25. 

4 Porphyr.  De  Abstin.  2,  30.  An  Athenian  bronze  coin  shows  a trapeza  before  the  image  of  Dionysos 
enthroned  : Imhoof-Blumer  and  Gardner,  Num.  Comm.  PI.  CC.  4. 

6 It  is  the  old  principle  of  the  party,  pregnantly  expressed  in  the  well-known  aphorism  of  Kimon’s,  that  Athens 
should  not  draw  at  the  yoke  without  her  yoke-fellow  (Plut.  Kim.  16.) 

6 The  first  Peace  of  Aristophanes  is  supposed  to  belong  to  422  ; that  which  is  now  extant  dates  from  the 

3 M 


450 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


powerful  to  make  these  sculptures  quite  intelligible  ; the  Acharnai  of  Aristophanes,  performed  in  the 
spring  of  that  year — with  Dikaiopolis  and  his  thirty  years’  private  peace  with  Sparta — is  an  eloquent 
proof  of  this. 

When  finally  we  pass  on  to  the  artistic  character  of  the  frieze,  we  find  that  a specially  noticeable 
point  is  the  pictorial  treatment  of  the  relief,  which  contrasts  strongly  with  the  style  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze,1  and  connects  it  closely,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  frieze-reliefs  from  Asia  Minor  belonging 
to  about  the  same  time,  in  which  we  presumably  have  specimens  of  Ionic  art.2  These  pictorial 
peculiarities  consist  in  the  indication  of  several  planes  one  behind  another,  in  the  oblique  arrangement 
and  the  foreshortening  of  objects  and  limbs,  and  in  other  points  of  the  same  kind.  The  Nike  frieze 
especially  resembles,  both  in  motives  and  in  stylistic  details,  the  best  reliefs  of  the  Nereid  monument 
from  Xanthos.  Yet  there  are  equally  manifest  differences  from  Ionic  work,  which  serve  to  charac- 
terize the  frieze  of  Nike  as  Attic,  such  as  its  Aem-or^r,  the  elegant  delicacy  which  prevails  amid  all 
the  vehemence  of  the  fighting  groups.3  Among  Attic  works  it  has  long  been  recognized  that  the 
frieze  most  resembles  the  sculptures  of  the  Erechtheion.4  The  similarity  between  the  standing 
goddesses  of  the  east  frieze  and  the  Caryatids  of  the  south  porch  is  at  any  rate  complete.  The 
latter  were  executed  before  the  interruption  of  the  work  at  the  Erechtheion  ; they  therefore  belong 
before  413,  and  come  near  in  time  to  the  temple  of  Nike.  The  figures  of  the  Erechtheion  frieze  are 
not  earlier  than  409 — 408  ; they  are  inferior  work  by  stone-masons,  and  do  not  lend  themselves  to  the 
more  delicate  comparisons  of  style.  The  magnificent  Caryatids,  on  the  contrary,  may  with  probability 
be  assigned  to  Kallimachos.  We  have  here,  therefore,  a strong  ground  for  conjecturing  that 
Kallimachos  was  also  the  artist  of  the  frieze  of  the  temple  of  Nike,  whose  image  within  we  have 
ascribed  to  him. 

Kallimachos,  as  we  saw,  introduced  from  Ionia  into  Attica  the  so-called  1 akanthos  decora- 
tion ’ ; moreover,  it  was  probably  he  who  fashioned  the  charmingly  graceful  Torus-capital  of 
the  Erechtheion  after  Ionic  models.5  It  seems  probable  that  a third  innovation — namely,  the 
introduction  into  Attika  of  the  Ionic  pictorial  style  of  relief — must  also  be  referred  to  him. 

Speaking  generally,  when  we  consider  in  connexion  with  Attic  art  the  peculiar  style  of  floating, 
clinging  drapery  both  of  the  Xanthian  Nereid  monument  and  of  the  Gjolbaschi  reliefs,  we  are 
constrained  to  suppose  a second  period  of  Ionic  influence  upon  Attic  sculpture  in  the  time  after 
Pheidias.  Now  Kallimachos  seems  to  have  been  especially  prominent  as  a representative  of  this 
Ionic  style,  though  he  refined  it  considerably,  and  freed  it  completely  from  that  monotony,  amounting 
to  hardness,  which  it  still  displays  at  Xanthos. 

The  most  dazzling  perfection  of  this  manner,  however,  is  seen  in  the  splendid  reliefs  with  which  the 
balustrade  round  the  temple  of  Nike  was  adorned.  These  were  added  later,  very  probably  after  the 
great  victories  of  Alkibiades — about  the  same  time  that  the  resolution  was  passed  for  the  completion 

spring  of  421.  The  gods  themselves  have  moved  away  because  they  are  wroth  with  the  Hellenes  (v.  203  sqq.), 
who  are  making  war  upon  each  other  ; and  Homer  is  summoned  to  curse  the  ir6\efxos  i-rviSijtJuos  (v.  1097).  These 
were  also  the  views  of  the  negotiator  of  the  peace,  Nikias. 

1 Cf.  with  regard  to  this,  especially  Bruckner  (Ath.  Mittli.  xiv.  p.  403  seq.)  The  relief  of  combatants 
published  by  him  there  seems,  in  fact,  to  be  remarkably  near  akin  to  the  Nike  frieze,  and  might  be  the  work  of  the 
same  artist.  In  this  connexion  it  is  not  without  significance  that  the  Pythodoros,  son  of  Epizelos,  who,  according 
to  the  excellent  conjecture  of  von  Wilamowitz,  was  the  dedicator  of  the  relief,  was  a thorough  adherent  of  the 
oligarchical  party  led  by  Nikias.  He  was  one  of  those  who  swore  to  the  Peace  of  Nikias  ; he  proposed,  as  we 
now  know  from  Aristotle  (’A0r;v.  ttoA.  29,  1),  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  the  Four  Hundred,  and  was  himself 
one  of  them  ; later  also  he  was  one  of  the  Thirty. 

2 That  the  Nereid  Monument  of  Xanthos  and  the  Ileroon  of  Gjolbaschi  belong  to  the  same  period,  and  that 

this  is  in  the  fifth  century,  I have  noticed  Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  pp.  359,  368  ; Wolters  ( Gipsabg .)  and  Benndorf  {Heroon 
von  Gjolb. ) have  subsequently  followed  me  in  this  view  The  opinion  which  I also  expressed  there,  that  these 
works  are  of  original  Ionic  style  and  do  not  imitate  Attic  models,  I likewise  still  believe  to  be  correct.  One  may, 
however,  go  higher  up  in  the  fifth  century  for  the  date  than  I did  then.  The  Dioskouros  of  the  one  Akroterion 
from  Xanthos  (cf.  hoc.  cit.  347)  whose  head  is  extant  shows  a style  which  can  hardly  be  placed  after  440, 
as  it  resembles  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon.  In  J.  H.  .S',  xiii.  132  seq.  J.  Six  places  the  Nereid  monument 

in  the  time  of  King  Perikles,  i.e.  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century. 

3 The  frieze  is,  when  closely  examined,  of  excellent  workmanship,  fresh  and  delicate.  At  a distance  it  is 

not  effective  ; this  fact  and  its  seriously  mutilated  state  are  probably  the  causes  of  its  having  repeatedly  been 

unjustly  estimated.  An  intrinsic  difference  between  the  east  side  and  the  others  (Kekule,  Balustr.  p.  27)  I cannot 
perceive. 

4 Cf.  recently  A.  H.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculpt,  in  the  Brit.  Plus.  i.  p.  241. 

5 The  observation  that  the  capital  of  the  Erechtheion  is  an  old  Ionic  type  ‘ennobled  by  the  Attic  sense  of 
form  ’ is  due  to  Puchstein,  Das  Ionische  Kapitcil,  p.  29.  The  inscription  of  409 — 408  names  the  architect  Philokles 
as  a member  of  the  commission  elected  by  the  people  for  the  sake  of  the  resumption  and  completion  of  the 
work  at  the  Erechtheion.  The  building  was  however  by  that  time  completed  in  the  main,  notably  the  columns 
were  standing.  The  design  for  them  and  for  the  whole  ornamentation  is  certainly  with  more  probability  to  be 
assigned  to  the  gifted  Kallimachos,  the  maker  of  the  lamp  within,  and  inventor  of  the  Corinthian  capital,  than  to 
the  obscure  Philokles,  of  whom  we  do  not  hear  till  the  work  is  almost  complete. 


THE  PEDIMENTS  OF  THE  PARTHENON 


451 


of  the  Erechtheion  (409 — 408). 1 Any  one  who  compares,  for  instance,  the  charming  figure  in  the  left 
corner  of  the  east  frieze  of  the  temple  (Peitho)  with  certain  fragments  of  the  balustrade  will  be 
inclined  to  ascribe  the  latter  also  to  the  same  artist.  But  this  we  will  leave  undecided.  In  any  case 
the  artist  belonged  to  the  same  Ionicizing  school,  which  tended  to  a wide  divergence  from  the  Pheidian 
style,2  inclining  on  the  one  hand  to  greater  impulsiveness  and  effect,  on  the  other  to  greater  elegance 
and  subtlety  in  expression.  Truth  is  now  but  slightly  regarded  ; the  difference  between  the  linen  stuff 
of  the  chitons  and  the  woollen  stuff  of  the  mantles  falls  quite  into  the  background  ; in  fact — in  the 
famous  ‘ Sandal-binder,’  for  instance — the  chiton  and  mantle  are  so  little  differentiated  that  the  edges 
of  the  two  pass  into  each  other.  The  untruthful  manner  of  this  style  led  to  the  reaction  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century,  when  the  artists  returned  to  nature  in  a new  fashion.3 

We  have  tried  to  reach  a comprehension  of  the  temples  of  the  Akropolis  from  an  historical  point 
of  view.  We  have  found  them  to  be  in  very  close  connexion  with  the  struggle  of  the  great  parties 
which  extends  throughout  the  whole  of  the  fifth  century.  The  magnificent  productions,  the  Parthenon 
and  the  Propylaia,  were  the  creations  of  the  men,  Themistokles  and  Perikles,  who  gave  Athens  a 
standing  of  her  own  independent  of  Sparta,  and  brought  into  existence  the  splendid  Attic  Empire. 
The  elegant  small  buildings,  the  Erechtheion  and  the  temple  of  Nike,  arose  from  that  reactionary 
school  which  for  a time,  after  the  death  of  Perikles,  came  again  to  the  front.  The  old-fashioned  piety 
of  this  party  found  its  expression  in  the  Erechtheion,  their  efforts  after  peace  with  Sparta  in  the 
temple  of  Nike. 

The  tendencies  of  this  school  also  had  a broad  basis  in  the  people.  Comedy  is  the  best  witness 
to  this  : she  was  wholly  on  the  side  of  this  party.  Aristophanes  was  not  a great  patriot,  as  is  often 
asserted,  but  a pure  partisan.  Nay,  it  was  simply  unpatriotic  to  goad  on  the  allies  against  Athens  as 
he  did  in  the  Babylonians  (426  b.c.)  No  doubt  the  whole  Attic  Empire  was  repugnant  to  the 
oligarchical  party  : the  treatise  On  the  Athenian  Constitution  admits  one  deep  into  the  embittered 
soul  of  a politician  of  this  school.4  Aristophanes  was  also  a worthy  colleague  of  Hermippos,  who 
brought  Aspasia  to  trial  for  free-thinking  (ciaefteia)  ;5 6  he  was  not  ashamed  to  sacrifice  a Sokrates  to 
the  laughter  of  the  mob,  and  to  drag  him  in  the  dirt  because  his  teaching  was  enlightened.  At 
the  same  time  he  preached  peace  without  regard  to  what  was  demanded  by  the  dignity  and 
power  of  Athens. 

The  Akropolis,  however,  received  artistic  adornment  even  from  this  party,  and  as  Perikles  had 
Pheidias,  so  Nikias  and  his  adherents  found  their  artist  in  Kallimachos,  a genius  in  what  was  decorative, 
elegant,  rich,  and  dazzling,  rather  than  great.  And  his  archaistic  manner  enabled  him  to  satisfy  the 
piety  of  those  who  gave  him  commissions.  But  the  symbols  of  the  true  greatness  of  Athens  are 
and  will  ever  be  the  creations  of  Perikles,  the  Parthenon  and  Propylaia. 


VI.  The  Meaning  of  the  Pediniental  Sculptures  of  the  Parthetion. 

The  explanation  of  a number  of  the  figures  from  the  pediments  of  the  Parthenon  is  still 
completely  arbitrary  and  uncertain ; and  we  are  obliged  again  and  again  to  make  fresh  efforts  to 
reach  firmer  ground  in  this  respect.  This  is  more  especially  the  case  with  the  west  pediment,  with 
which  we  will  accordingly  begin.0  We  must  first  of  all  be  clear  with  regard  to  the  basis  of  our 
knowledge.  This  is  afforded,  over  and  above  the  extant  remains,  first  of  all  by  Carrey’s  drawing. 
For  the  so-called  Anonymous  of  Nointel  is  valueless;  his  drawing  is  nothing  but  an  old  and  very 
unskilful  copy  from  Carrey.  It  tries  to  unite  into  one  general  picture  of  the  temple  facade  what  is 
given  in  the  two  separate  sheets  of  Carrey’s  original.  This  was  rightly  perceived  some  time  ago  by 
Petersen,7  and  the  published  facsimile  of  the  drawings  by  making  comparison  possible  seems  to  me 
to  exclude  all  doubt.8  In  Carrey’s  work  every  stroke  shows  that  he  had  the  actual  building  and  its 
sculptures  before  him  ; in  the  drawing  of  the  Anonymous  it  is  equally  clear  that  he  worked  simply  after 
Carrey’s  model,  without  ever  having  set  eyes  on  the  Parthenon.  We  will  call  attention  to  one  or  two 

1 The  deductions  of  Michaelis  (in  the  Ath.  Mitth.  xiv.  364  seq. ) with  regard  to  the  date  of  the  balustrade 
seem  to  me  inevitable.  That  it  is  later  than  the  temple  has  been  shown  by  Bohn  on  decisive  technical  grounds. 

2 Cf.  also  Michaelis,  toe.  cit.  364. 

3 Cf.  also  Samm.  Saboitrogf  on  PI.  20,  p.  2 ; Skulpt.  Introd.  p.  14  seq. 

4 Cf.  also  what  Dummler  has  written  in  Hermes,  1892,  260  sqq.,  with  regard  to  the  treatise  of  Kritias. 

5 Plut.  Perikl.  32. 

6 I have  given  a short  sketch  of  the  views  set  forth  below,  at  a meeting  of  the  Archaeological  Society  in 
Berlin  (Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  70). 

7 Fleckeisen' s Jahrbiicher,  1872,  296,  307. 

8 Antike  Denkm.  i.  PL  6,  7.  Cf.  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1887,  p.  1313. 


452 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


points  only.1  The  strange  and  ugly  capitals  of  the  Anonymous  are  completely  explained  by  Carrey, 
who  drew  them  from  a high  point  of  view  ; thus  the  Anonymous  mistook  the  echinus  for  a 
thick  round  roll.  Carrey’s  hasty  two  lines  on  the  neck  he  turned  into  two  more  rolls.  The  arbitrary 
and  unmeaning  lines  which  the  Anonymous  uses  to  indicate  the  remains  of  the  metopes  could  never 
be  the  work  of  one  who  had  the  original  before  him,  but  are  completely  explained  by  the  failure  of  the 
Anonymous  to  get  sufficient  information  out  of  Carrey’s  indications,  which  are  everywhere  slight,  and 
moreover  extended  only  to  the  left  half  of  the  fa5ade.  In  figure  A the  curious  form  of  the  belly  which 
projects  to  the  left  is  clearly  due  to  misunderstanding  of  the  indefinite  shadow  given  by  Carrey  in  this 
place.  The  effort  to  make  the  pediment  look  as  much  filled  up  as  possible  led  the  Anonymous  to  do 
away  with  the  gap  between  A and  B.  But  the  relation  between  the  two  drawings  is  especially  clear  in 
the  case  of  the  female  figure  C ; the  absolutely  unmeaning  shape  given  by  the  Anonymous  to  the  lower 
part  of  her  body  could  only  have  arisen  from  a misunderstanding  of  Carrey’s  work  ; with  the  original 
before  him  the  draughtsman  could  not  have  represented  it  so.  In  B,  again,  the  Anonymous  gives 
only  the  upper  part  of  the  right  arm,  whereas  even  Pars  saw  part  of  the  forearm  still  left ; Carrey 
saw  the  whole  forearm,  bent  towards  the  head,  still  complete  with  its  hand ; he  indicated  it 
however  but  slightly,  and  from  a point  where  it  was  parallel  to  the  line  of  the  upper  part  of  the  arm. 
Thus  the  stump  of  arm  given  by  the  Anonymous  is  again  to  be  explained  by  a misunderstanding  of 
Carrey’s  work.  The  same  has  happened  with  A ; that  figure  too  still  preserved  in  Stuart’s  time  part 
of  its  right  forearm  ; in  Carrey’s  view,  taken  from  the  centre,  the  arm  was  very  much  foreshortened, 
and  moreover  in  shadow  ; Carrey  gives  only  a slight  and  not  clear  indication  of  the  arm.  This  the 
Anonymous  has  once  more  interpreted  wrongly,  and  drawn  clearly  a short  stump  of  arm,  whereas  the 
original  at  that  time  possessed  a great  piece  more. 

But  enough  of  these  proofs,  all  of  which  are  taken  from  the  three  first  figures  alone,  and  which 
could  be  added  to  by  comparison  of  almost  any  one  of  the  personages  that  follow.  Thus  the 
divergence  in  D between  the  Anonymous  and  Carrey  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  former  did  not 
understand  the  rapid  movement  of  this  figure  from  Carrey’s  sketchy  drawing,  and  therefore  turned 
it  into  a regular  sitting  figure  quite  at  rest  : and  many  other  cases  might  be  instanced.  We  need  now 
only  mention  the  arguments  adduced  in  favour  of  the  Anonymous  by  his  latest  supporter, 
H.  Bliimner.2  They  were,  it  is  true,  written  before  the  publication  of  the  drawings,  and  can  be 
disposed  of  by  a mere  glance  at  the  facsimiles.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  Anonymous  took 
original  sketches  from  various  points  and  subsequently  combined  them,  as  Bliimner  imagined.  Had 
he  for  instance  drawn  A independently  from  the  front,  the  lower  part  of  the  leg,  which,  as  Stuart 
shows,  remained,  must  have  been  visible  ; as  a matter  of  fact,  it  disappears,  exactly  as  in  Carrey’s 
drawing,  where  the  phenomenon  is  explained  by  the  point  of  view  selected.  As  for  Bliimner’s 
assertion,  that  the  Anonymous  draws  the  right  foreleg  of  the  hinder  horse,  which  Carrey  has  not  got, 
on  account  of  his  different  point  of  view,  the  inexact  publication  in  Michaelis  was  solely  responsible 
for  this  error,  since  the  facsimile  shows  that  the  Anonymous  was  simply  copying  Carrey.  The  only 
divergence  in  the  horses  is  that  he  thought  well  to  add  a second  hind  leg  in  the  place  of  the  slight 
and  obscure  lines  which  Carrey  gives  at  this  point.  The  different  and  more  correct  attitude  of  the 
head  in  B and  C ascribed  to  the  Anonymous  is  again  a mistake  arising  from  Michaelis’s  plate,  and 
refuted  by  the  facsimile,  which  show's  his  dependence  on  Carrey  in  this  point  also.  The  second 
dolphin  and  the  left  leg  of  W were  evolved  by  the  Anonymous  himself,  Carrey  giving  only  the  slightest 
indications  at  these  points,  and  he  drew  V more  upright  because  he  could  not  reproduce  the  strong 
foreshortening  of  this  figure  as  it  appears  in  Carrey’s  drawing.  In  the  group  P O the  Anonymous 
has  especially  gone  astray  in  his  interpretation  of  Carrey  ; he  draws  the  torso  of  a boy  sitting 
on  the  lap  of  a woman,  whereas  the  boy  is  in  fact  standing  on  the  ground  behind  her  right  leg  ; this 
mistake  could  not  have  been  made  by  any  one  looking  at  the  original,  but  might  very  well  arise  from 
a misunderstanding  of  Carrey’s  indications. 

Thus  we  must  definitely  strike  out  the  Anonymous  as  a source  of  our  knowdedge  of  the  west 
pediment.  The  first  inference  from  this  is  that  we  have  to  follow  Carrey  in  the  gaps  that  he  gives 
as  well  as  in  all  else.  There  is,  then,  a figure  missing  between  U and  V as  well  as  one  between 
A and  B.  Hitherto  it  has,  as  is  well  known,  been  customary,3  in  spite  of  the  great  inconsistency 
of  such  a proceeding,  to  reject  the  Anonymous  for  the  left  angle  of  the  pediment,  and  accept  the 

1 My  comparisons  naturally  refer  only  to  the  facsimiles  of  the  drawings  ; the  reproduction  given  by 
Michaelis  is  well  known  to  be  inaccurate. 

2 In  Gesamm.  Stud.  s.  Kunstgesch.,  Festgabe  fur  A.  Springer,  1885,  p.  240  sqq. , 252. 

3 This  has  been  the  prevalent  theory  at  least  since  Welcker  : on  the  other  hand,  Brondsted,  O.  Muller,  and 
Leake,  and  more  recently  Waldstein  also  [Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias,  the  reproduction  ibid.  p.  133,  is  given 
without  discussion;,  have  followed  Carrey  in  supposing  two  gaps. 


THE  WESTERN  PEDIMENT 


453 


gap  given  by  Carrey  after  A,  but  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  right  half  of  the  pediment,  to  put  faith 
in  the  Anonymous  alone.  And  yet  every  one  must  admit — and  in  fact  even  Michaelis  does  so1 — 
that  wherever  Carrey’s  drawings  can  be  tested  by  the  originals  they  show  complete  correctness 
precisely  ‘ in  the  arrangement  of  the  figures  and  the  observance  of  the  proper  distances  between 
them,’  so  that  there  is  no  excuse  for  disregarding  the  gap  which  Carrey  saw  and  marked  in  his 
drawing  after  U. 

Moreover,  in  this  case  also  the  extant  remains  furnish  a corroboration  of  Carrey’s  evidence. 
Bruno  Sauer,  in  the  commentary  to  his  highly  meritorious  survey  of  the  traces  still  remaining  on  the 
floor  of  the  pediments,2  does  indeed  base  his  remarks  on  the  prevalent  theory,  which  in  the  right 
half  of  the  pediment  follows  the  Anonymous  and  denies  the  gap.  But  the  very  traces  he  has 
studied  refute  his  own  theory. 

In  Slab  20,  on  the  left  (see  Fig.  183),  by  the  southernmost  of  the  two  dowel-holes  situated  here, 
Sauer  has  correctly  observed  the  mark  of  what  must  be  the  limit  between  T and  U.3  On  the  other 
hand,  the  position  of  V is  fixed  by  the  mark  of  the  left  hand  as  recognized  by  Sauer,  and  by  traces  of 
the  chisel  and  two  dowel-holes  on  Slab  22.  The  figure  can  only  have  projected  a little  with  its  right 
knee  over  Slab  21,  if  the  existing  torso  is  combined  with  that  mark  of  the  hand  ; and  this  shows  that 
the  figure  was  brought  up  quite  close  to  W,  which  accords  with  Carrey’s  evidence.4  Thus  there 
remains,  if  we  suppose  no  gap  between  U and  V,  a space  of  nearly  one  slab  and  three  quarters  in 
breadth  for  U.  This  would  do  very  well  for  a recumbent  figure  with  outstretched  legs,  but  for 
a seated  one— and  such  was  U,  according  to  Carrey — it  is  considerably  too  much,  however  broadly 
the  figure  sat.  What  we  must  therefore  assume  here  is  a group  of  two  closely  united  figures.  And  in 
fact  the  attitude  of  U in  Carrey’s  drawing  itself  points  to  this,  being  quite  unintelligible  if  the  figure 
were  not  resting  the  upper  part  of  the  body  against  another  figure  to  be  supplied  in  the  gap,  and 
which  we  shall  call  U*. 

It  is  true  that  the  corresponding  group  on  the  other  side  (B  C)  takes  somewhat  more  space 
(about  the  width  of  two  slabs),  but  to  make  up  for  this  the  group  E F on  this  side  is  satisfied  with 
only  the  width  of  one  slab,  whereas  the  recumbent  group  S T is  considerably  wider,  which  must 
necessarily  have  made  the  space  for  UU*  more  confined.  The  clear  space  belonging  to  V, 
which  breaks  off  to  the  left  on  Slab  22,  must  have  passed  into  that  of  U*,  on  Slab  21,  just  as  the 
empty  spaces  of  D E F pass  into  each  other. 

Thus  the  existing  traces  serve  only  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  Carrey’s  drawing.  We  should 
further  remark  that  the  condition  of  the  slabs  of  the  floor  may  even  disclose  the  cause  which  brought 
about  Carrey’s  two  gaps.  In  Slab  4,  where  is  the  gap  of  the  left  half  of  the  pediment,  the  larger 
half  in  front  is  wanting.  This  was,  as  Sauer  rightly  observes,  broken  at  an  early  period,  probably 
by  the  fall  of  the  block  of  the  cornice  above  it,  and  this  also  knocked  down  the  figure,  which  was 
already  missing  in  Carrey’s  time.  Now  the  same  is  the  case  with  Slab  21,  on  which  we  must,  as  we 
saw,  place  the  second  gap  given  by  Carrey  ; here  also  the  front  half  of  the  slab  is  wanting,  and  no 
doubt  here  also  it  has  been  carried  away  with  the  figure  by  the  block  of  the  cornice  above.  Carrey, 
on  the  one  sheet  where  he  gives  the  pediment,  draws  it  complete,  no  doubt  fromaesthetic  considerations. 
But  Dalton  shows  the  slabs  on  which  the  figures  stood  as  broken  away  in  front  just  at  the  places 
which  we  have  indicated  as  those  of  the  two  gaps.  Dalton  is  inaccurate  simply  in  the  matter  of  the 
arrangement  and  drawing  of  the  figures.5 

It  is  only  by  means  of  that  second  gap,  which  we  may  now  consider  as  proved  with  certainty, 
that  we  can  possibly  make  out  that  the  most  necessary  requirement  of  symmetry  was  observed  in  the 
pediment — namely,  equality  in  the  number  of  figures  in  the  two  halves.  The  two  children  in  great 
part  hidden  behind  O can  of  course  not  be  counted  in  : they  are  only  equivalent  to  attributes.  The 
ten  persons  of  the  left  half  of  the  pediment  must  have  ten  likewise  in  the  right  half  answering 

1 Parthenon,  p.  102  seq.  2 Antike  Denkm.  i.  58  ; Ath.  Mitth.  xvi.  PI.  3,  p.  39  sqq.  (our  Fig.  183). 

3 Sauer  has  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  dowel-hole  naturally  marks  the  lower  limit  of  the  figure 
T,  not  the  upper,  which  lay  farther  out.  But  this  comes  to  the  same,  since,  as  Carrey  shows,  the  lower  part  of 

U’s  right  leg  went  out  in  an  oblique  direction.  Thus  U followed  immediately  upon  the  lower  limit  of  T,  not  merely 
upon  the  upper  ; and  on  the  other  side  the  upper  limit  of  U,  according  to  Carrey,  projected  but  very  little  over 
the  lower.  Sauer  is  therefore  wrong  in  thinking  that  a quite  unusually  large  space  may  be  claimed  for  U. 

4 Carrey  shows  also  that  V is  to  be  turned  even  more  towards  the  front  than  has  been  done  in  the  drawing  by 
Sauer  ; the  vacant  space  also  agrees  with  this  ; the  knee  of  the  figure,  stepping  out  obliquely  towards  the  left 
(north),  projected  into  Slab  21. 

0 Dalton  brought  S T far  too  much  to  the  right  ; they  would,  according  to  him,  stand  on  Slabs  20,  21,  which  is 
impossible.  The  torso  W,  which  even  now  remains  in  the  pediment,  he  left  out  entirely.  That  the  figure  which 
he  places  next  after  C is  drawn  quite  wrongly  is  shown  by  the  later  drawing  of  Pars  (Newton,  Guide  to  the  Elgin 
Room , p.  39  seq.  ; A.  Id.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculpt.  Brit.  Mus.  i.  p.  123).  For  the  general  question  of  Dalton’s 
unreliability  cf.  Petersen,  Kunst  des  Pheidias,  p.  175  sqq.  ; Loschcke,  Dorpater  Programm,  1884,  p.  4. 


[The  letters  .corresponding  to  the  figures  are  given  to  facilitate  following  Furtwangler’s  arguments  ; they  must,  however,  be  taken  as  rough  indications,  and  not  as  marking  accurately  the 

place  occupied  by  the  figures  on  each  slab. — E.  S.] 


THE  WESTERN  PEDIMENT 


455 


to  them.  The  three  women  C D F on  the  left  with  the  youth  E correspond  without  doubt  to  the 
three  women  Q T U on  the  right  with  the  youth  S.1  Accordingly,  B also  must  have  had  a pendant 
on  the  right  (U*j,  against  whom  U leaned  as  C against  B.  We  must  therefore  conceive  U*  as  a man 
sitting  on  the  ground  like  B. 

Sauer  by  his  excellent  investigations  has  arrived  at  the  result  that  the  east  pediment  had  a com- 
position similar  in  the  main  to  that  of  the  west  pediment.  Now  Sauer  has  proved  an  exactly 
corresponding  number  of  figures  for  the  two  halves  of  the  east  pediment,  and  this  number  is  ten 
each  side.  The  inference  with  regard  to  the  west  pediment  is  inevitable  : not  till  we  supply  the  man 
who  is  wanting,  U*,  does  the  correspondence  and  symmetry  of  the  two  pediments  become  complete. 

It  only  remains  for  us  to  say  something  with  regard  to  the  places  of  figures  N — T in  the  west 
pediment,  since  the  way  in  which  Sauer  has  determined  them  will  not  quite  stand.  It  cannot  be  right 
to  regard  the  dowel-hole  occuriing  about  the  middle  of  Slab  18  as  the  limit  between  O and  P O R,  as 
he  does  : it  is  more  likely  the  limit  between  P Q R and  ST.  For  his  supposition  makes  the  space  for 
the  wide  recumbent  figure  S with  T far  too  scanty,  since  O with  S T together  would  have  scarcely  the 
width  of  two  slabs  at  their  disposal.  On  the  other  hand,  towards  the  left  the  space  for  O would  be 
far  too  big,  and  symmetry  would  be  seriously  outraged,  since  the  corresponding  charioteer  G,  whose 
limit  towards  F is  determined  by  the  dowel-holes  to  the  left  on  Slab  9,  would  stand  a good  deal  nearer 
to  the  centre,  and  that  in  spite  of  Sauer’s  statement  that  Poseidon  and  ‘the  figures  about  him’ 
stood  about  33  centimetres  nearer  the  centre  ; 2 at  any  rate,  Poseidon  stood  somewhat  nearer 
to  the  centre  than  Athena,  as  is  shown  also  by  Carrey’s  drawing  : but  the  teams  of  horses  seem, 
according  to  the  indications  given  by  Sauer,  to  have  stood  at  equal  distances  from  the  centre,  and 
this  was  certainly  the  case  with  the  drivers  also.  Tbe  base  of  O therefore  ended  in  the  last  quarter 
of  Slab  17,  answering  to  G on  Slab  9 ; likewise  N and  H corresponded  ; the  ‘ridges’  (Ratidbcinke)  on 
the  wall  of  the  pediment  which  indicate  the  end  of  their  plinths  are  equidistant  from  the  centre. 
On  the  right,  the  plinth  of  O — which  is  somewhat  narrow  at  the  base — with  P R,  extended  from  the 
end  of  Slab  17  as  far  as  the  centre  of  18;  the  holes  on  the  left  in  front  of  Slab  18  are  no  doubt 
due  to  the  affixing  of  the  rock  under  0,  of  which  Carrey  gives  a slight  indication.  Only  in  this  way 
do  we  obtain  the  necessary  space  of  one  slab  and  three  quarters  for  the  widely  outstretched  figure  T 
with'  S (namely,  the  right  half  of  Slab  18,  Slab  19,  and  the  first  quarter  of  Slab  20).  With  Sauer’s 
arrangement  there  would  remain  for  T only  a quite  insufficient  space. 

Finally  I have  a criticism  to  make  as  to  the  figures  that  make  up  the  extant  remains  of  the  west 
pediment  ; there  can  in  my  opinion  be  no  doubt  that  we  possess  the  N of  the  west  pediment  in  the 
torso  I east,  usually  assigned  to  the  east  side,  as  it  is  also  by  Sauer.3  Its  agreement  with  Carrey’s  N 
is  so  striking  and  so  complete,  extending  even  to  the  fracture  of  the  right  arm,  that  if  they  are  not 
actually  identical  we  must  suppose  that  the  artist  repeated  the  same  figure,  both  at  the  east  and  at 
the  west  end.  It  has  recently  been  thought  that  a difference  could  be  perceived — that  the  extant  left 
shoulder  of  the  torso  showed  that  the  arm  was  lifted  higher  than  it  is  in  N.4  But  even  this  solitary 
distinction  I cannot  concede,  for  it  rests  on  a mistaken  observation — the  left  arm,  as  the  cast  shows, 
can  by  no  means  have  been  raised  higher  than  it  is  in  Carrey’s  drawing.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  yet  a further  corroboration  of  the  identity  remaining  on  the  torso  itself ; at  the  back,  below  the 
buttocks,  is  a broken  surface  where  a piece  of  drapery  has  fallen  off,  of  which  a fragment,  with  strong 
large  folds,  is  still  extant.  Now  the  place  is  just  that  where  the  drapery  drawn  by  Carrey  as  falling 
over  the  left  arm  would  necessarily  touch  the  torso.  It  has  further  been  asserted 5 that  there  would  have 
been  no  room  for  the  wings,  though  this  has  not  been  established  by  any  attempt  to  restore  them.  The 
wings6  were  certainly  expanded  sideways,  and  a glance  at  Carrey’s  sketch  shows  us  how  suitably  the 

1 That  S is  male  cannot  be  doubted  any  longer,  according  to  the  facsimile  of  Carrey’s  work,  here  rightly 
understood  by  the  Anonymous.  Sauer  thinks  that  he  has  found  two  fragments  of  the  figure  ( loc . cit.  p.  79  seq.)  ; 
of  them  I cannot  judge  without  actual  inspection.  In  J.  H.  S.  xiii.  p.  92,  Cecil  Smith  stated  that  S of  the  west 
pediment  was  female  in  Carrey  and  Dalton.  In  Carrey,  as  the  facsimile  shows,  this  is  notoriously  not  the  case  ; 
in  Dalton’s  poor  drawing  the  forms  are  vague  ; neither  breast  nor  hips  however  are  decidedly  female. 

2 Sauer,  loc.  cit.  78.  In  a letter  to  me,  however,  he  concedes  that  only  Poseidon  stood  somewhat  near  the 
centre. 

3 For  the  ascription  to  the  east  opinions  have  been  expressed  notably  by  Petersen,  Pheidias,  p.  144,  note  1 ; 
Michaelis,  Arch.  Zeitg.  1882,  p.  376,  note  11  ; Newton,  Guide  to  the  Elgin  Room  ; A.  H.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculpt. 
i.  U2  ; Overbeck,  Archdol.  Miszcllen  in  the  Leipziger  Rcnuntiationsprogramm,  1887,  p.  14  sqq.  For  assigning 
it  to  the. west  : Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1874,  24  ; Trendelenburg,  Arch.  Ztg.  1880,  131  ; Loschcke,  Dorpaler 
Programm,  1884,  p.  11,  n.  14  ; Waldstein,  Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias,  p.  150  sqq.  ; Collignon,  Phidias,  p.  44, 
60  ; E.  Sellers,  Class.  Review,  vi.  369. 

4 Michaelis,  loc.  cit.,  and  recently  also  in  the  Berl.  Philol.  Wochenschr.  1892,  1170. 

5 Overbeck,  loc.  cit. 

6 No  doubt  is  possible  as  to  their  existence.  Waldstein’s  idea  {loc.  cit.)  that  the  large  holes  in  the  back  were 
for  metal  clamps  to  support  the  figure  is  quite  inadmissible. 


456 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


wings  must  have  served  to  fill  up  the  empty  space  between  N and  O.  That  the  wings  were  lost  even 
before  Carrey’s  time  is  certainly  not  astonishing,  in  view  of  the  Byzantine  wall  against  which  the 
figure  came.  Everything,  then,  is  in  favour  of  ascribing  it  to  the  west  pediment,  and  nothing  against 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  attempt  to  range  it  at  the  east  end  meets  with  the  most  serious  obstacles. 
Carrey  has  no  figure  of  the  kind  there,  and  Nike  if  represented  must  surely  have  been  nearer  to 
Athena.  Sauer  has  to  do  great  violence  to  the  torso  in  order  to  bring  it  into  accord  with  the  marks 
on  the  slabs  of  the  east  pediment.  He  is  obliged  to  place  it  wholly  in  profile,  and  to  make  it  advance 
straight  inwards,  towards  the  wall  of  the  tympanon  ! This  is  ugly  and  impossible  ; the  back — the 
left  buttock  especially — is  distinctly  characterized  by  its  workmanship  as  the  back  side  ; the  figure 
therefore  did  not  stand  in  profile,  which  moreover  would  be  a very  unfavourable  view  for  it.  If  we 
have  won  this  torso  for  the  west  pediment,  we  must  on  the  other  hand  reject  altogether  from  the 
Parthenon  the  ‘Venice  fragment’1 2  which  Waldstein  attributed  to  this  same  pediment.  Its  style 
and  manner  of  execution  show  it  to  be  a work  of  a far  later  period,  as  I have  repeatedly  convinced 
myself  in  looking  at  the  original. 

Now  that  we  have  cleared  the  ground  by  this  critical  investigation,  we  may  proceed  to  the 
discussion  of  the  doubtful  points  of  interpretation,  where  almost  everything  is  a matter  of  controversy. 
Even  with  regard  to  the  significance  of  the  central  group  and  of  the  whole  action  there  is  a divergence 
of  opinion.'1 

Some  suppose  that  the  two  deities  are  just  in  the  act  of  producing  the  tokens  of  their  power, 
Olive-tree  and  Salt  Spring,  in  rivalry,  before  the  eyes  of  the  assembled  judges  who  are  to  decide  which 
is  the  better.  Others  imagine  a conflict  between  the  two  gods,  concerning  the  Olive  and  Salt  Spring 
as  tokens  of  possession,  and  the  respective  authenticity  and  priority  of  the  tokens.  Poseidon  is  thought 
to  be  raising  his  trident  to  a blow,  directed  either  against  the  Olive,  or  the  snake  supposed  to  be  upon 
it,  or  else  against  Athena  herself.  Hermes  and  Iris  are  approaching,  to  announce  that  the  Athenians 
are  to  judge,3  or  that  according  to  the  decree  of  Zeus  and  the  gods  the  rivals  are  to  come  to  terms.4 

None  of  these  conceptions  however  seems  to  me  to  be  quite  correct.  They  all  assume  too  much, 
and  see  things  that,  if  not  impossible  to  represent,  are  at  least  certainly  not  represented  here.  Un- 
doubtedly that  view  is  correct  which,  in  accordance  with  the  older  tradition,  regards  Olive  and  Salt 
Spring  not  as  ‘ competitive  products  ’ but  as  ‘ symbols  of  taking  possession.’ 5 * But  of  a ‘ wild  annihilat- 
ing’ combat  between  the  two  deities0  I can  perceive  nothing.  If  that  were  intended,  they  would  at 
least  necessarily  be  rushing  to  the  encounter.  The  supposition  that  Poseidon’s  trident  is  being  aimed 
at  the  Olive,  or  at  the  snake  conjectured  to  be  upon  it,  or  at  Athena,  has  become  untenable,  since 
Sauer  has  shown  that  the  Olive  stood  exactly  in  the  centre  of  the  pediment  behind  the  deities,  and 
that  the  arrangement  of  the  deities  given  by  Carrey  is  correct,  so  that  the  legs  of  the  two  crossed.  It 
would,  moreover,  as  it  seems  to  me,  be  inconceivably  harsh  to  conceive  Poseidon  thrusting  directly  at 
Athena.  And  as  a general  consideration  we  must  remember  that  the  Parthenon  was  certainly  intended 
as  a successor  to  the  old  temple  of  Polias,  where  Polias  was  worshipped  in  peaceful  union  with 
Poseidon-Erechtheus,  and  the  tokens  produced  by  the  two  deities  were  held  equally  holy.  And  finally 
that  conception  leads  to  impossible  conclusions.  If  a wild  combat,  threatening  to  Athena,  was  repre- 
sented, we  wish  to  see  an  indication  of  its  outcome  also.  Now  it  is  asserted  that  this  is  given  by  the 
presence  of  the  messengers  of  the  gods,  Hermes  and  Iris.  But  this  was  evidently  not  so.  If  it  had 
been,  those  messengers  would  necessarily  have  been  characterized  as  principal  personages,  and  would 
be  interfering  directly  to  compose  the  quarrel.  But,  on  the  contrary,  Hermes  and  Iris  are  clearly 
marked  as  secondary  figures  by  their  positions  behind  the  chariots  and  horses.  And  what  business 
has  this  Hermes  to  be  turning  his  head  round  and  gossiping,  when  his  duty  is  to  prevent  with  all 
speed  the  harm  that  must  ensue  when  Poseidon  carries  out  the  thrust  with  his  trident  ? 

We  shall  get  on  better  by  keeping  purely  to  the  artistic  representation,  and  by  combining  this  with 
the  tradition  of  the  earlier  authorities  concerning  the  main  import  of  the  myth. 

The  two  deities  Athena  and  Poseidon,  enamoured  of  the  small  spot  of  ground,  the  rocky 
Akropolis  of  the  Athenians,  have  both  come  thither  from  Olympos,  in  their  chariots  (as  is  seemly  for 
great  deities).7  Each  chariot  is  driven  by  a female  personage.  The  charioteer  of  Poseidon  is  certainly 

1 Arch.  Ztg.  1880,  I’l.  7 ; Waldstein,  Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias,  PI.  v.  p.  121  ; Collignon,  Phidias,  p.  62. 

2 Cf.  especially  Michaelis,  Parthenon,  179  sqq.  ; Petersen,  Pheidias,  151  sqq. ; Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1876, 
i.  477  sqq.  ; Robert,  in  Hermes,  1881,  60,  and  Ath.  Mitth.  vii.  (1882),  49  sqq.  ; Preller-Robert,  Gr.  Mythol.  i. 
203  ; Petersen,  in  Wiener  Stndien,  v.  42  sqq.  ; Hermes,  1882,  124  sqq.  ; Loschcke,  Dorfater  Programm,  1884, 
1 sqq.  ; E.  A.  Gardner,  J.  H.  S.  iii.  244  sqq.  ; Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  p.  259  sqq. 

3 So  Robert,  loc.  cit.  4 So  Loschcke,  hoc.  cit.  5 ,As  Robert  (Joe.  cit.)  has  shown. 

0 Loschcke,  loc.  cit.  ; similarly  Robert  and  Wolters,  loc.  cit. 

7 Similarly  Themis  and  Eris  have  arrived  on  Ida  together  from  the  two  sides  in  their  chariots,  on  the 

beautiful  vase  of  the  Judgment  of  Paris,  Stephani,  Compte  Rendu,  1861,  PI.  3. 


THE  WESTERN  PEDIMENT 


457 


not  his  spouse,  the  great  goddess  Amphitrite,  Hut  some  ministrant  Nereid  ; for  Athena  the  service  is 
probably  performed  by  her  attendant  Nike.  Each  god  lias  further,  as  befits  their  dignity,  brought 
with  them  a Tsofxvbs  as  escort.1  Athena  has  Hermes,  a god  friendly  to  her — worshipped  with  her  in 
one  cella  on  the  Akropolis  ; Poseidon  has  Iris,  who  is  closely  connected  with  him.2  On  the  rock  of 
the  Citadel  the  two  gods  have  met  together,  both  have  taken  possession,  each  by  a token  of  power — 
Athena  by  the  Olive,  Poseidon  by  the  Salt  Spring,  which  was  indicated  on  the  right,  extending  as  far 
as  his  chariot,  under  which  Carrey  saw  a dolphin  as  a symbol  of  the  salt  water.  The  arrival  of  the 
two  deities  on  the  same  spot,  their  collision  with  one  another,  both  making  the  same  claims — this  and 
nothing  else  was  represented  in  the  clearest  and  most  striking  wise.  Like  two  balls  that  collide,  the 
two  recoil  from  each  other,  while  the  intersection  of  their  legs  makes  it  clear  that  they  are  laying 
claim  to  the  same  spot.  The  movement  is  essentially  the  same  in  the  two,  but  Poseidon  according  to 
his  nature  is  wilder,  more  violent  in  bearing,  Athena  more  dignified.3  What  happened  further,  after 
the  meeting  of  the  deities  and  the  setting  up  of  their  tokens,  the  artist  does  not  say,  and  did  not  need 
to  say,  since  every  one  knew.  The  Athenians  determined  to  found  a holy  place  for  the  two  deities 
on  the  Citadel  which  they  had  honoured  by  their  presence,  and  to  reverence  the  tokens  of  both,  but 
to  worship  Athena  as  their  real  patron  goddess.  The  presentation  of  the  myth  in  the  form  of  a 
trial,  with  judges,  judicial  proceedings,  and  decision,  belongs  to  a later  period  ; at  any  rate,  no  trace 
of  it  is  to  be  perceived  in  the  pediment.  The  figures  behind  the  chariots  are  assuredly  not  an  assem- 
blage of  judges  : they  are,  in  fact,  mostly  women  or  children. 

Now  as  to  the  names  of  these  figures  the  greatest  uncertainty  prevails  ; all  the  manifold  attempts 
to  assign  names  are,  as  their  authors  must  surely  admit,  only  a blind  groping  in  the  dark.  I believe, 
however,  that  all  means  for  attaining  surer  results  have  by  no  means  been  yet  exhausted.  To  tear  up 
by  the  roots  the  weeds  of  old  prejudices  must,  however,  be  the  first  part  of  our  task.  And  the  most 
deeply  rooted  and  perverse  of  these  prejudices  is  the  notion  that  the  figures  in  the  angles  represent 
river  gods  and  fountain  nymphs.4  It  is  a wholly  baseless  explanation,  that  collapses  into  nothing  as 
soon  as  it  is  critically  examined.  Such  an  examination  was  first  made  by  Walz  in  an  excellent 
though  too  little  known  essay.5  The  only  reason  worth  mentioning  which  led  to  the  interpretation, 
the  tradition  handed  down  by  Pausanias,  that  the  angle  figures  of  the  east  pediment  at  Olympia 
represented  river  gods,  is  untenable,  the  tradition  in  question  being  demonstrably  wrong.6  Whoever 
may  have  been  represented  by  those  recumbent  youths  at  Olympia,  they  could  have  been  regarded  as 
river  gods  only  by  later  times,  when  art  swarmed  with  personifications  of  nature,  such  as 
recumbent  figures  of  rivers  and  the  like.  Apart  from  the  analogy  of  this  interpretation  given  by 
Pausanias  at  Olympia  (which  moreover  is  applicable  only  to  the  male  figure  on  the  left,  not  to 
the  female  figure  of  the  other  angle),  all  other  arguments  adduced  for  the  ‘ river  gods  ’ on.  the  Par- 
thenon are  absolutely  worthless.  Recourse  has  even  been  had  to  the  favourite  metaphor  of  language 
which  describes  the  forms  of  the  man  in  the  left  angle  as  ‘ flowing,’  by  way  of  support  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  him  as  a ‘stream’  ; and  in  the  ‘undulating’  lines  of  his  mantle  at  the  back  a hasty  fancy 
has  seen  an  indication  of  actual  waves.7  Finally,  it  was  also  believed  that  the  man  was  lying  on  a 
‘ stream  bank,’  because  under  the  upper  part  of  his  body  a rock-basis  is  given,  while  his  legs  rest  on 

1 This  is  customary  in  the  Homeric  epos,  as  on  the  vases  of  the  earlier  period  ; the  usual  leader  of  the  gods’ 
chariot-teams  is  of  course  Hermes.  We  should  mention,  too,  the  leaders  who  are  advancing  at  a quick  pace 
beside  the  teams  in  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  : these  are  akin  to  those  of  the  pediment  in  the  motives  also. 

2 Cf.  Trendelenburg,  Arch.  Ztg.  1880,  p.  132  scq.  For  the  parallelism  of  Iris  and  Hermes,  cf.  also  the  vase 
given  in  J.  H.  S.  xi.  PI.  11  (Decking  of  Pandora)  ; it  belongs  to  the  period  circa  450 — 440. 

3 It  is  a mistake  to  consider,  as  is  generally  done,  that  Poseidon  is  drawing  back,  Athena  triumphing.  Their 
movement  is  quite  similar,  only  diversely  coloured  in  accordance  with  their  diverse  characters.  The  well-known 
vase  at  St.  Petersburg  must  be  left  out  of  consideration  in  interpreting  the  pediment  ; it  is  clearly  inspired  by  these 
sculptures,  but  displays  quite  different  motives.  Cf.  especially  Brunn  and  E.  A.  Gardner,  loc.  cit.  Still  less 
allied  is  the  representation  on  a fragmentary  Pyxis  on  the  Akropolis  (unpublished).  Athena  and  probably  also 
Poseidon  are  at  rest  ; between  them  are  the  salt  ‘sea’  (with  fish)  and  the  olive.  Dionysos  is  approaching  tumultu- 
ously behind  Poseidon.  The  lamp  with  the  (pis  of  Athena  and  Poseidon  published  by  Cecil  Smith  (_T.  H.  S. 
xiii.  p.  93)  throws  no  light  on  the  question,  as  the  group  only  bears  a distant  resemblance  to  the  group  of  the 
west  pediment.  The  only  interesting  point  is  that  there  is  certainly  no  struggle  between  the  two  divinities. 

4 With  reference  to  their  names  there  is  much  variation  ; the  favourite  names  are  Kephissos,  Ilissos,  and 
Kalirrhoe  ; recently  Eridanos  also  was  proposed  (Robert,  Nekyia  des  Polygnot,  p.  71  ; and  so  already  before  him 
Weber,  1821).  The  question  as  to  how  these  various  streams  could  have  been  made  recognizable  to  the  ancient 
spectator  is  touched  by  none  of  the  interpreters. 

5 Walz,  Eckfiguren  am  Ostgiebel  des  ol.  Zeustempels  u.  am  IVestgieh.  des  Parth .,  Programm  des  Evang.  Theol. 
Seminars  zu  Maulbronn,  1887  ( Progr . No.  543). 

6 Cf.  my  discussion  and  reply  to  the  objections  of  others  in  the  Jahrb.  d Inst.  1891,  p.  87  ; Arch.  Anz.  1891, 
p.  94  ; and  Berl.  Philol.  Wochens.  1892,  p.  1316. 

7 Cf.  Michaelis,  Parthenon , p.  193  ; Petersen,  Phidias,  p.  195  ; Newton,  Guide,  p.  28  ; A.  H.  Smith, 
Catal.  i.  120. 

3 


N 


458 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


the  floor  of  the  pediment.1  But  how  is  the  floor  of  the  pediment  to  be  made  to  suggest  water?  How 
the  artist  did  represent  water  is  shown  by  the  figure  of  Helios  rising  from  Okeanos  in  the  correspond- 
ing angle  of  the  east  pediment.  Moreover,  according  to  this  theory,  the  kneeling  girl  C would  be 
holding  her  left  knee,  which  is  on  rock,  upon  a ‘ stream  bank,’  and  her  right  in  the  water,  in  which 
likewise  the  left  knee  of  B would  be  lying,  since  these  two  knees,  cut  off  below,  rest  directly  on  the 
floor  of  the  pediment  like  that  leg  of  A.  But  in  fact,  when  we  look  carefully,  it  becomes  quite  clear 
that  below  the  figures  towards  the  left  angle  the  rocky  ground  is  in  every  case  given  where  the  scanty 
space  allowed,  and  in  every  case  omitted  where  its  introduction  would  have  required  that  the  figure 
should  be  cut  lower.  It  was  the  effort  of  the  artist  in  the  restricted  angles  of  the  pediment  to  make 
the  figures  as  large  as  was  in  any  way  possible.  And  to  any  one  looking  from  below,  as  the  floor  of 
the  pediment  was  not  at  all  visible,  this  method  of  giving  the  rock  produced  the  same  effect  as  though 
the  figures  were  lying,  kneeling,  or  sitting  entirely  upon  the  rock. 

And  this  rocky  surface  can  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  Akropolis,  on  which  the  scene  in  the 
centre  is  taking  place.  It  is  quite  inadmissible  to  separate  off  the  figures  in  the  angles,  who  are 
manifesting  a lively  interest  in  that  scene,  and  to  transport  them  in  imagination  to  some  other  spot. 
They  also  are  necessarily  beings  of  a like  kind  with  the  rest  assembled  here.  And  these  must  be 
persons  who  are  at  home  on  the  Akropolis,  where  are  no  rivers  ; they  must  be  the  original  inhabitants 
of  the  Citadel  rock,  who  witnessed  that  visit  of  the  two  deities,  and  who  first  instituted  their  worship. 
It  is  they  who  possess  the  warmest  and  most  immediate  interest  in  the  scene,  and  have  the  first  claim 
to  be  represented  here. 

In  opposition  to  this  simple  and  natural  postulate,  various  Attic  deities  have  been  sought  out,  now 
one  now  another,  for  the  most  part  in  arbitrary  fashion  ; some  have  even  supposed  the  artist’s 
archaeological  and  topographical  views  to  be  symbolized.  The  only  consistent  explanation  has  been 
that  of  Brunn,  who,  making  the  river  gods  the  basis  of  his  theory,  regarded  the  remaining 
figures  as  nothing  but  a living  map  of  Attika.  That  this  was  impossible  was  soon  perceived  ; but  it 
was  only  the  consistent  development  of  the  mistaken  original  idea  that  there  were  river  gods  in  the 
angles  representing  a part  of  the  country  of  Attika.  In  the  artistic  products  of  the  fifth  century  there 
are  no  instances  of  any  figures  serving  merely  as  indications  of  locality.2  Such  personifications  were 
foreign  alike  to  Polygnotan  painting  and  to  the  extant  vases.3  All  analogies  demand  that  on  the 
Parthenon  also  we  should  have  only  personages  of  flesh  and  blood,  with  purely  human  relations  to 
the  scenes  represented. 

A safer  starting-point  is  given  by  the  snake  on  the  powerful  coils  of  which  the  man  B is  seated, 
and  on  which  he  supports  himself  with  the  left  hand.  When  the  original  inhabitants  of  the  Akropolis 
— the  witnesses  of  the  i'pis  of  the  gods — are  in  question,  this  man,  as  has  been  long  recognized,  can  be 
no  other  than  Kekrops,  the  autochthonous  snake -man,  the  ApaKovrld^s,  after  whom  the  Citadel  itself 
was  supposed  to  have  been  in  earliest  times  called  KeKponla.  It  is  true  that  he  was  properly  conceived 
as  ending  below  in  the  form  of  a snake,  and  was  generally  represented  so,  but  this  old-fashioned 
representation  would  not  meet  the  artistic  demands  of  a Pheidias  ; the  artist  would  think  it  a sufficient 
substitute  to  indicate  the  inner  union  of  hero  and  of  snake  by  representing  Kekrops  merely  resting 
on  his  snake.  Moreover,  on  a vase  of  the  more  severe  period  Kekrops  is  represented  in  purely 
human  form,  without  the  snake  at  all.4 

Kekrops  is  appropriate  too  on  Athena’s  side,  since  he  stands  in  the  closest  connexion  with  her. 
It  is  customary  for  him  to  be  present  even  at  the  intimate  scene  of  Athena’s  receiving  the  infant 
Erichthonios  from  the  hands  of  Ge.  And  his  daughters  Aglauros,  Herse,  and  Pandrosos  are,  as  is 
well  known,  the  closest  companions  of  Athena ; in  fact,  Aglauros  and  Pandrosos  are  actually 
surnames  of  Athena.  That  the  three  girls  who  come  next  after  B can  be  none  other  than  these  three 
daughters , the  napdevoi  ’A y\avpdies,  has  long  been  perceived  (first  by  Leake,  1821).  They  are  all 
pressing  towards  their  father  ; the  last,  probably  the  youngest,  is  kneeling  by  him,  and  holds  him  in 
her  embrace.  The  Ephebe  who  is  with  them,  and  takes  part  in  the  same  movement  towards 
the  left,5  must  be  their  brother,  Erysichthon  ; in  him  the  relations  of  Athens  to  Delos  were 

1 This  has  been  quite  recently  brought  forward  again  as  an  argument  for  the  interpretation  of  them  as  river 
gods,  by  Michaelis  [Bert.  Philol.  Wochenschr.  1892,  col.  1170). 

- Cf.  the  Bert.  Philol.  Wochenschr.  1892,  col.  1316. — The  ‘Hellas’  and  ‘ Salamis  ’ of  Panainos,  the 
‘Eleusis,’  ‘Thebe,’  ‘Asia’  of  the  vases,  are  of  course  not  at  all  mere  designations  of  place,  as  the  supposed 
figures  in  the  pediment  of  the  Parthenon  would  be. 

3 Cf.  especially  Gerber  in  Fleckeisen' s Jahrb.  Supp.  xiii.  277  sqq.  He  has,  as  is  well  known,  also  proved 
(p.  300  sqq. ) that  personifications  of  mountains  are  unknown  in  Greek  poetry  and  art  before  the  Roman  period. 

4 Munich,  376,  Rape  of  Oreithyia. 

5 I conjecture  that  he  is  to  be  conceived  as  sitting  down  ; I cannot  explain  on  any  other  supposition  the 
drawing  up  of  the  right  leg  so  high.  According  to  the  theory  that  the  figure  had  fallen  in  Carrey’s  time,  and 


ERECHTHEUS  AND  KEKROPS 


459 


embodied,1  since  he  led  the  first  festal  embassy  there,  dedicated  a carved  image  to  Apollo,  and 
brought  back  a sacred  image  of  Eileithyia.  Mythology  made  him  die  in  his  father’s  lifetime, 
before  he  had  begotten  offspring,  and  so  he  is  fitly  presented  as  an  Ephebe.  The  children 
of  Kekrops  are  terrified  by  the  violent  encounter  of  the  two  great  gods,  and  press  timidly  towards 
their  father. 

We  have  seen  that  the  arrangement  of  the  two  halves  of  the  pediment  was  completely  symmetrical. 
Over  on  the  right  side  also  there  were,  as  Carrey  shows,  three  women  with  an  Ephebe  ; the  last  of  the 
women  is  turning,  just  like  D on  the  other  side,  only  with  a still  more  violent  action,  away  from  the 
centre  towards  the  angle  of  the  pediment.  The  next  figure,  which  was  no  longer  there  in  Carrey’s 
time,  was,  as  we  have  shown,  a seated  man  answering  to  B ; the  maiden  above  mentioned  leant  in 
terror  against  him.  The  groups,  which  corresponded  artistically  with  such  completeness,  must  have 
corresponded  in  meaning  also.  Here  too  we  must  recognize  a father  with  his  three  daughters.  He  too 
must  have  belonged,  like  Kekrops,  to  the  original  inhabitants  of  the  Citadel. 

From  these  premises  the  interpretation  follows  with  simple  necessity  : we  cannot  any  longer  go 
astray,  since  there  is  only  one  possibility  ; we  must  recognize  in  these  figures  Erechtheus  with  his 
daughters.  He  alone  forms  a complete  counterpart  to  Kekrops  : he  is  as  closely  united  to  Poseidon 
as  the  other  is  to  Athena.  He  was  the  second  great  original  inhabitant,  the  competitor  and  rival 
of  Kekrops  in  the  old  Attic  religion.3  He  was  conceived  as  living  on  in  the  heart  of  the  Citadel 
rock.  Erechtheus  and  Kekrops  share  together  in  the  west  half  of  the  old  temple  of  Athena,  and  of  its 
successor  the  Erechtheion,3  although  Erechtheus  took  precedence  in  ritual,  owing  to  his  identification 
with  Poseidon.  Mythology,  however,  distinguished  the  hero  from  the  god.  As  a hero  and  one  of  the 
oldest  inhabitants  of  the  land,  he  appears  united  with  Kekrops  and  his  daughters  at  the  birth  of 
Erichthonios,  on  a beautiful  Attic  cylix  of  the  Pheidian  epoch  ; 4 and  another  somewhat  older  vase 
painting5  shows  Kekrops  and  Erechtheus  again  associated  as  the  two  ancient  kings  of  the  land — a 
representation  of  special  importance  for  us,  since  those  two  are  there  pictured  together  with  their 
daughters,  who  appear  as  playmates  to  each  other.  These  monuments  show  that  the  artists  of  the 
period  regarded  Kekrops  and  Erechtheus  as  contemporaries,  both  of  whom  are  alike  interested 
witnesses  of  the  first  acts  of  the  gods  on  Attic  soil. 

The  daughters  of  Erechtheus  also  form  of  course  an  exact  counterpart  to  those  of  Kekrops. 
According  to  the  older  tradition  of  which  we  have  evidence  for  exactly  the  period  of  the  pediments 
of  the  Parthenon,  they  likewise  were  three,  a £VC-yor  Tpnvap8evav,  nymphs  of  precisely  similar  nature  to 
the  Agraulides.0  By  the  same  meadows  and  caves  on  the  north  slope  of  the  Citadel  where  the 
daughters  of  Kekrops  dance  to  the  flute  of  Pan,  one  of  the  daughters  of  Erechtheus  had  yielded  to 
Apollo.7 


had  previously  been  upright  (Petersen,  Phidias,  p.  182,  No.  1),  that  leg  would  be  quite  inexplicable.  The  move- 
ment of  the  Ephebe  is  quite  similar  to  that  of  the  girl  D beside  him. 

1 Cf.  particularly  Milchhofer,  Der  Attische  Apollon,  p.  11. 

3 Cf.  Immisch  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  ii.  1023.  3 Cf.  supra,  p.  435.  4 Mon.  d.  Inst.  x.  39. 

5 Munich,  376;  a contemporary  replica,  which  only  differs  in  not  having  all  the  inscriptions,  Berlin,  2165, 
Rape  of  Oreithyia,  the  Daughter  of  Erechtheus.  On  the  copy  at  Munich,  Kekrops,  Erechtheus,  Herse, 
Pandrosos,  Aglauros  are  designated  by  name.  The  fifth  maiden  without  a name  (the  ‘indistinct  traces  of  letters’ 
of  which  Jahn  speaks  here  I have  made  out  on  the  original  to  be  a iea\6s ) must  be  a second  daughter  of  Erech- 
theus, sister  of  Oreithyia. 

3 (evy.  rpnr.  Eurip.  frg.  359.  Cf.  frg.  362,  1.  36.  The  tradition  that  there  were  six,  in  the  Atthis  of 
Phanodemos  (Suidas,  irapdivoi — Photius,  p.  397,  7),  is  obviously  later  ; the  comic  poet  Phrynichos  {ibid.),  who 
mentioned  the  irapQlvoi,  probably  did  not  state  their  number.  In  Apollodorus  (3,  15,  1 and  3,  15,  8)  we  find  two 
traditions,  both  later,  and  without  value  for  us  ; both  give  four  maidens  ; one  makes  them  daughters  of  a Hyakin- 
thos  (because  they  were  called  Hyakinthides).  The  same  two  parallel  versions  occur  in  Ilyginus,  Fab.  238  ; their 
cultus-name  was  simply  irapOtvoL,  Suidas  (cf.  Eurip.  Ion.  278)  or  'TaiavfflSes,  Lykourgos  apud  Harpocr.,  Pseud. 
Demosth.  iirirarp.  27  (p.  1397).  Speech  of  Phokion  apud  Diod.  17,  15,  2.  There  were  various  versions  concerning 
the  origin  of  this  name.  According  to  Phanodemos,  toe.  cit.,  it  was  derived  from  a hill,  Hyakinthos,  on  which  the 
maidens  were  slain  in  sacrifice.  Others  invented  a father  Hyakinthos,  and  he  naturally  had  to  be  represented  as  a 
Lakedaimonian  who  had  migrated  to  Athens.  At  the  same  time  it  was  necessary  to  invent  other  names  than  those 
established  for  the  daughters  of  Erechtheus.  In  reality  the  name  merely  designated  the  maidens  as  nymphs  to 
whom  the  hyacinth  flower  is  sacred.  In  the  Erechtheus  of  Euripides  (frg.  359)  they  are  called  'Ya5es  : this 
again  is  only  a name  typical  of  them  as  nymphs.  The  name  Hyades  was  given  also,  as  is  well  known,  to  the 
nurses  of  Zeus  and  of  Dionysos,  the  nymphs  of  Dodona  and  of  Nysa.  As  in  the  case  of  the  other  Attic  nymphs, 
the  sacrifices  made  to  them  were  naturally  vpcpdxca.  This  is  expressly  stated  by  Philochoros,  frg.  31  ( Schol . Oed. 
Col.  100,  A tovvoip  re  Kal  ’Ep.  Ovyarpaoiv,  as  well  as  to  other  gods,  vri<pd\ia  iepa  are  offered)  ; he  does  not  however 
at  all  assert,  as  is  generally  stated  (Preller- Robert,  Gr.  Myth.  i.  201),  that  the  daughters  of  Erechtheus  received 
sacrifices  together  with  Dionysos  (Bohlau,  in  Bonner  Stud.  p.  137,  actually  makes  it  into  ‘ together  on  the  same 
altar’)  ; they  only  had  in  common  the  characteristic  of  receiving  vri<pd\.a,  the  places  of  their  worship  were  of 
course  distinct.  It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  the  place  of  their  worship  was  on  the  Akropolis,  though  this  is 
nowhere  expressly  stated. 

7 Eurip.  Ion.  492  sqq. 


460 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


The  manifold  myths  with  regard  to  the  daughters  of  Erechtheus  enabled  the  artist  to  characterize 
them  more  particularly.  The  figure  that  sits  in  full  front  view  next  behind  the  charioteer  of  Poseidon 
must  be  the  Oreithyia  so  renowned  in  legend.  The  story  of  her  being  carried  off  by  Boreas  was  an 
especial  favourite  in  the  art  of  the  fifth  century.  According  to  the  oldest  tradition  the  rape  took  place 
on  the  Akropolis  itself,1  to  which  the  girl  was  going  as  Kanephoros  of  Athena  Polias.  In  the  far 
north,  on  the  Sarpedonian  rocks  surrounded  by  the  roar  of  tempests,  she  bore  to  the  wind-god  two 
sons,  Kalais  and  Zetes.  Thus  we  reach,  without  seeking  it,  at  once  the  explanation  of  the  peculiarities 
of  that  figure  O which  hitherto  have  been  quite  a riddle.  On  the  remaining  lower  part  of  the  body  the 
drapery  appears  in  the  most  striking  manner  seized  by  the  wind,  which  troubles  its  folds.  The  figure 
sits  with  closed  feet,  as  though  to  resist  the  assault  of  the  storm.  According  to  Carrey,  she 
is  on  a raised  seat  of  rock,  at  the  foot  of  which  the  waves  of  Poseidon’s  salt  water  cease  their 
flow.  She  has  by  her  two  boys,  the  bigger  of  whom  presses  close  to  her,2  while  the  smaller  stands  on 
the  rock  near  her  left  shoulder.3  The  attempts  hitherto  made  at  explanation  do  not  at  all  suit  these 
facts,  and  least  of  all  that  interpretation  of  her  as  Gaia  Kourotrophos 4 which  has  recently  come 
into  favour  again.  On  the  other  hand,  Oreithyia  could  not  be  more  appropriately  characterized  than 
she  has  been  here.  It  is  true  that  this  could  only  be  done  by  a certain  anachronism,  a prolepsis — 
incidents  being  indicated  which  happened  later  than  the  scene  represented.  But  before  the  cele- 
brated rape  Oreithyia  was  just  no  more  than  a girl,  with  nothing  to  distinguish  her  from  others.  She 
could  be  characterized  only  by  means  of  an  allusion  to  her  subsequent  fate.  It  is  well  known5  that 
ancient  art  made  free  use  of  prolepsis,  especially  in  accessories  like  attributes,  and  such  are  the 
children  of  Boreas  here  ; the  characterizing  of  mythological  figures  by  an  allusion  to  the  principal 
incident  of  their  fortunes  was  a specially  favourite  device  of  Polygnotan  painting.  Finally,  if  it 
should  be  objected  that  the  little  Boreadai  would  necessarily  have  had  wings,  we  may  point  in  answer 
to  Ovid,  Metam.  vi.  713  sqq .,  where  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  wings  only  grew  with  their  beards. 
In  view  of  Ovid’s  special  connexion  with  the  arts  of  painting  and  sculpture6  we  may  conjecture  that 
he  had  in  his  mind  some  representation  of  Oreithyia  with  her  children  not  yet  winged,7  and  in  fact 
art  necessarily  represented  them  without  wings  that  they  might  not  be  confused  with  F.rotes. 

The  storm-possessed  figure  of  Oreithyia  with  the  little  Boreadai,  moreover,  awoke  in  the  Athenians 
the  pleasant  memory  of  their  special  friendship  with  Boreas,  who  as  their  good  ‘son-in-law’  gave 
them  such  valiant  support  in  the  Persian  crisis.8 9  And  his  home  in  Thrace  also  was  in  fact  in  the 
Periklean  period  a land  of  special  importance  to  the  Athenians,  and  a prop  of  their  power. 

The  woman  next  to  Oreithyia,  lying  in  profile  with  the  Ephebe  on  her  lap,  must  be  the  other 
famous  daughter  of  Erechtheus,  Kreousa,  with  her  son  Ion. 

We  first  of  all  will  point  out  that  here  again  the  artistic  motive  is  satisfied  by  our  interpretation. 
A youth  sitting  in  this  way  on  the  knees  of  a woman  must  be  either  son,  or  in  some  relation  equally 
near.  This  is  proved  not  only  by  the  nature  of  things,  but  by  all  analogies  in  art.  Parents  take  their 
children  on  their  laps — this  movement,  as  old  as  the  human  race,  is  the  root  from  which  all  similar 
groups  arise.  It  is  true  that  the  lover  may  hold  his  beloved  upon  his  knees — the  group  occurs 
repeatedly  in  ancient  art 0 — but  not  vice  versa  : the  wife  does  not  take  her  husband  on  her  lap.10  It  must 
always  be  the  stronger  and  elder  of  the  two  who  in  this  intimate  fashion  unites  with  himself  the  younger 
and  subordinate  member  of  the  pair.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  the  beautiful  terra-cotta  groups  of  Asia 
Minor,  which  represent  two  women  thus  grouped  together,11  the  one  who  holds  the  other  on  her  lap  is 

1 Akousilaos  apud  Schol.  Horn.  Od.  14,  533  (Muller,  Frag///.  Hist.  i.  102,  23). 

s The  upper  part  of  his  body  has  been  quite  recently  identified  (see  Cecil  Smith’s  note  in  Class.  Rev.  1892, 
(vi.),  p.  475). 

8 The  Boreadai  are  first  called  twins  by  Ovid,  Metam.  vi.  712. 

4 First  advocated  by  Brondsted  and  Millingen,  recently  by  Robert  ( Hermes , xvi.  60),  Walz \Maulbr.  Progr. 
1887,  p.  32),  and  Ivuhnert  (Roscher’s  Lexikon , i.  1577;.  Loschcke  calls  her  Demeter  Kurotrophos  {Dorpater 
Progr.  1884,  p.  10). 

5 Cf.  especially  Stephani  in  the  Comptes  Rendus  (Sal.  Reinach,  Index  des  C.R.,  sub  v.  Prolepsis). 

6 Cf.  Ribbeck,  Rom.  Dichtung,  ii.  309. 

7 Since  Ovid  visited  Athens,  the  Parthenon  itself  may  have  been  his  authority.  In  fact,  the  description  of 

the  contest  between  Poseidon  and  Athena  (vi.  70  sqq. ) also  agrees  in  many  points  with  the  west  pediment,  and 
especially  the  motive  of  Athena’s  calling  forth  the  olive-tree  by  a thrust  of  her  lance  might  have  originated 
merely  from  an  interpretation  of  the  pediment.  8 Herod,  vii.  189. 

9 Cf.  e.g.  the  vase  Antiqu.  du  Bosph.  PL  62,  2.  Berlin  vases,  2904. 

10  Thus  the  motive  of  itself  tells  against  Loschcke’s  interpretation  of  the  group  as  Melite  and  Heraldes 
( Dorpater  Progr.  1884,  p.  10,  ‘ the  father  sits  on  the  knees  of  the  mother  ’). — A variant  of  Loschcke’s  interpretation 
has  been  recently  proposed  by  Robert  ( Nekyia  des  Polygnot , p.  81) : Eleusis  with  Herakles.  It  is  at  least  as  good 
as  Loschcke’s,  but  a whole  set  of  others  just  as  good  may  be  made  up — a true  indication  that  no  progress  is  to  be 
made  on  that  path. 

11  Frohner,  Catal.  Grt'au,  Terresc.  PI.  48  ; Arch.  Anz.  1892,  p.  159. 


DAUGHTERS  OF  ERECHTHEUS 


461 


characterized  as  the  elder  and  more  dignified.  So  it  is  also  in  the  picture  of  Aristophon,  which 
showed  Alkibiades  sitting  on  the  knees  of  Neinea  ; 1 the  beautiful  young  victor  was  marked  as  a nursling 
of  the  goddess.  In  the  frieze  of  the  Erechtheion  we  find  not  only  a woman  with  a boy  2 on  her  knee, 
but  also  one  with  a nearly  full-grown  youth,3  just  as  in  the  group  on  the  Parthenon.  Of  course  both 
are  to  be  similarly  explained  : in  both  cases  we  have  a mother  with  a son.  Since  the  Erechtheion 
certainly  dealt  with  the  myths  attaching  to  Erechtheus  and  his  family,4  the  agreement  of  one  of 
its  groups  with  that  on  the  Parthenon  is  specially  noteworthy,  as  we  have  referred  the  latter  like- 
wise to  the  family  of  Erechtheus.  A small  marble  group  at  Eleusis5 6  shows  Kore  sitting  on  the  lap  of 
Demeter,  who  is  seated  as  usual  on  her  round  cist.  I may  finally  mention  the  relief  on  a beautiful 
bronze  mirror  from  Eretria,  where  Aphrodite  has  on  her  lap  Eros,  represented  as  almost  a full-grown 
boy,  a ycWlcpyPosI'  And  from  still  later  times  Domitian,  who  had  himself  represented  sitting  on  the 
knees  of  Jupiter,7  affords  an  argument  for  the  correctness  of  our  conception.  Later  art  also  knows  a 
group  of  this  kind,  which  again  serves  as  a corroboration — the  type  which  represents  St.  Anna  and 
the  Virgin  Mary,  in  which  the  full-grown  daughter  sits  on  her  mother’s  lap,  as  in  that  group  of  the 
goddesses  at  Eleusis. 

The  motive  seen  in  the  Parthenon  is  therefore  characteristic  for  the  relation  of  son  and  mother, 
and  our  interpretation  of  it  as  Kreousa  with  Ion  in  her  lap  fulfils  this  condition.  It  fits  also  excellently 
in  every  other  respect.  The  youthful  Ion,  the  only  male  scion  of  the  house  of  Erechtheus,  is  the  most 
complete  pendant  to  Erysichthon  on  the  other  side,  the  only  son  of  Kekrops.  And  the  two  corre- 
spond well  in  another  respect  also — namely,  that  they  both  have  close  relations  to  the  Ionic  Apollo  — 
Erysichthon,  to  the  Ionic  Kyklades,  and  their  worship  of  Apollo  on  Delos  ; Ion,  to  the  Ionians,  and  to 
Apollo  in  general.  The  graves  of  the  two  were  shown  and  reverenced  in  two  neighbouring  denies  of 
the  east  coast — that  of  Ion  in  Potamos,  that  of  Erysichthon  in  Prasiai.  But  with  Ion  were  connected 
yet  more  important  memories  than  with  the  other,  as  we  learn  from  the  words  which  Euripides  makes 
Athena  utter  at  the  close  of  his  Ion.  To  Ion  was  referred  in  Athens  the  first  political  organization  on 
Attic  ground  ; he  instituted  the  four  ancient  Phylai  (tribes),  called  after  him  ‘ Ionic.’8 *  His  sons  are 
the  Eponymoi  of  the  people  which  dwells  at  the  rock-citadel  of  Athena.  Hence  the  Ionians  went 
forth  to  the  Islands  and  to  Asia  Minor, ,J  and  thus  Ion  is  the  representative  of  the  ideal  Attic  Empire — 
namely,  of  the  dependence  of  all  Ionians  upon  Athens,  which  was  the  basis  of  the  Athenians’ power  10 
Thus  he  is  a figure  truly  fitted  by  his  nature  for  representation  on  the  pediment  destined  to  glorify 
ancient  Athens. 

That  Ion  belongs  to  the  house  of  the  Erechtheidai  as  Kreousa’s  son  is  an  Attic  legend  ; the 
oldest  witnesses  to  it  are  Euripides  in  his  extant  play,  and,  apparently,  Sophokles  in  a corresponding 
piece  now  lost.11  But  the  legend  must  possess  a high  antiquity,  and  must  be  as  old  as  the  introduction 
of  the  worship  of  the  Ionic  Apollo  Patroos  at  Athens,  and  the  dedication  of  a grotto  on  the  north 
slope  of  the  Citadel  to  this  Apollo  under  the  name  Hypakraios.12  His  place  of  worship  is  appointed 
to  him  on  the  Citadel  rock,  by  the  playground  of  the  daughters  of  Kekrops  and  Erechtheus,  clearly 
because  he  was  connected  with  the  autochthonous  royal  house  of  Attika,  as  lover  of  Kreousa,  one  of 
those  nymphs.13  Still  older,  however,  is  Ion  as  son  of  an  uncertain  mother  and  Apollo.  Apollo  and 

1 The  analogy  between  this  and  the  group  of  the  west  pediment  was  first  pointed  out  by  Loschcke  in  the 
Dorp.  Progr.  1884,  p.  8. 

2 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  815  ; Overbeck,  Gesch.  d.  Plastik,  3rd  ed.  i.  Fig.  80,  i.  A reproduction  of  this 
group  was  found  at  Eleusis  (’E<f>y)j..  dpx ■ 1890,  PI.  13),  together  with  a copy  executed  on  the  same  scale  of 
Kekrops  with  the  daughter  leaning  against  him  from  the  west  pediment  (ibid.  PI.  12).  The  series  of  these  figures 
at  Eleusis  probably  represented  the  families  of  Kekrops  and  Erechtheus,  after  the  model  of  the  sculptures  of  the 
Akropolis  : they  seem  to  belong  to  what  was  still  a very  good  period. 

3 Friederichs-Wolters,  Gipsabg.  817  ; Le  Bas,  Voyage  Arch.,  Mon.  Fig.  PI.  16,  1 ; Schone,  Gnech.  Reliefs, 
PI.  i. — iv.  No.  6. 

4 Robert  has  made  a clever  attempt  ( Hermes , xxv.  (1890)  p.  431  sqq. ) to  reconstruct  the  representations  : the 
details  are  of  course  highly  problematical. 

5 In  the  Museum  at  Eleusis,  unpublished  : it  is  not  even  mentioned  by  Kern  in  Ath.  Mitth.  1892,  125. 

6 Athens,  in  the  Arch.  Society  (Photograph  in  German  Institute,  Arch.  Anz.  1891,  p.  80.  No.  81). 

7 Tacit.  Hist.  iii.  74.  Cf.  Siltl,  Gebdrden,  p.  35. 

8 Herod,  v.  66;  Aristot.  AOyv.  iroA.  41  ; Eurip.  Ion , 1575  S11 ■ J Eurip.  Ion,  1581  sqq. 

10  Eurip.  Ion,  1584  : t>  crOlvos  ry/urj  x^oh  SiSwcriv. 

11  The  supposition  that  the  two  "titles  1 Kreousa  ’ and  ‘ Ion  ’ given  by  tradition  denoted  the  same  piece  is 

probably  correct. 

12  Ion  instituted  the  worship  of  Apollo  Patroos:  Aristot.  'A  8yv.  iroAi  t.  frg.  r (Kaib.  - Wilamow. ) V ith 
regard  to  Ion  and  Apollo  Hypakraios,  cf.  Milchhofer,  Attischer  Apollon,  p.  48.  Inscriptions  of  Roman  date 
{Ath.  Mitth.  iii.  144  sqq.  ; U.  Kohler)  inform  us  that  it  was  customary  for  the  Archons  and  the  officials  under  them 
to  set  up  votive  offerings  to  Apollo  Hypakraios  when  they  retired  ; perhaps  precisely  because  this  Apollo  was  the 
father  of  Ion,  founder  of  the  first  political  institutions  of  Attika. 

13  The  assertion  is  often  made  that  Euripides  was  the  first  to  link  Ion  to  Apollo  and  sever  him  from  Xoulhos 
(so  even  Topffer,  Att.  Gencal.  p.  268)  ; this  is  not  only  quite  groundless  and  intrinsically  improbable,  but  also  in 


462 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


he  came  as  an  established  pair  from  the  Tetrapolis  to  Athens,1  and  there  the  two  together  were 
connected  with  the  Akropolis  and  the  Erechtheidai.  The  Ionic  Phylai,  which  were  traced  back  to 
Ion,  existed  in  Asia  as  in  Attika  side  by  side  with  the  worship  of  Apollo  ;2  they  belonged,  with  the 
Ionic  Apollo,  to  the  Ionic  race.  But  the  connexion  with  Erechtheus  through  Kreousa  is  old  Attic. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  myth  of  Xouthos  son  of  Hellen  as  father  of  Ion  betrays  a later  origin.  Its 
tendency  is  to  represent  the  stock  of  Ionians  as  brother  to  the  stocks  of  the  Dorians  and  Aiolians,  and 
to  derive  them  all  from  a common  home  ; it  probably  belongs  to  the  circle  of  genealogical  poetry  in 
which  we  first  find  the  three  races  thus  traced  back  to  Hellen  as  a single  ancestor.3  The  two  fathers 
thus  attributed  to  Ion,  Xouthos  and  Apollo,  afforded  to  the  tragedians  a welcome  subject  for  spinning 
stories  of  conflicting  claims,  as  has  been  done  so  beautifully  by  Euripides.  The  artist  of  the  pediment, 
however,  started  directly  from  the  old  Attic  myth.4 

The  third  daughter  of  Erechtheus,  who  is  clinging  in  such  terror  to  her  father — now  lost — is 
clearly  conceived  as  the  youngest,  and  as  the  subject  of  the  famous  myth  according  to  which  she 
voluntarily  suffered  death  at  her  father’s  hands  for  the  weal  of  her  country.5  This  too  we  know  to 
have  been  a story  of  the  past  on  which  the  Athenians  prided  themselves. 

Again,  we  now  obtain  the  interpretation  of  the  angle  figures  also.  On  either  side  we  find  a pair 
consisting  of  a man  and  a woman — in  the  gap  between  A and  B a woman  is  certainly  to  be  supplied. 
For  the  sake  of  variety  their  relative  positions  are  reversed  at  the  two  sides  : on  the  one  the  man  is 
the  figure  in  the  angle,  on  the  other  the  woman.  In  each  pair  the  figures  are  closely  connected.  In 
the  case  of  V W this  is  shown  by  their  attitude,  turning  towards  each  other,  and  in  the  case  of 
A A*  it  is  to  be  presumed,  as  A is  turning  himself  with  a very  lively  movement  in  the  direction  in 
which  was  the  woman  now  lost.  Probably  her  body  was  turned  so  as  to  come  close  to  the  man, 
while  she  also  directed  her  eyes  in  astonishment  and  fear  towards  the  centre.  The  couple  on  the 
right,  by  Erechtheus,  is  to  be  interpreted  as  Boutes  and  his  wife,  an  explanation  which  is  simple  and, 
after  what  we  have  previously  said,  almost  inevitable.  Boutes  was,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  435),  one  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Erechtheion  and  the  old  temple  ; he  held  the  cella  next  to  Poseidon-Erechtheus, 
and  had  a priest  of  his  own.  He  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  ancient  heroes  of  the  Citadel, 
ranking  beside  Kekrops  and  Erechtheus.6  He  is  very  closely  connected  with  Poseidon  and 
Erechtheus,  and  at  bottom  is  of  the  same  essence  as  they.  He  is  the  ancestral  hero  of  the 
Eteoboutadai,  in  whose  family  the  priesthoods  of  Poseidon-Erechtheus  and  of  Athena-Polias  were 
hereditary.  According  to  the  myths  of  their  clan,  he  was — at  least  in  the  fourth  century — traced  up 
to  Erechtheus  ; but  the  older  myth,7  which  no  doubt  was  followed  by  the  artist  of  the  pediment,  made 
him  a son  of  Poseidon  himself.  The  later  myth  gave  him  a place  in  the  old  royal  house  of  Attika, 
as  brother  of  Erechtheus  and  son  of  Pandion.  His  wife  was  a somewhat  vague  figure  in  the  myth  : 
tradition  names  her  Chthonia,  and  traces  her  back  either  to  Erechtheus  or  to  Boreas.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  artist  of  the  pediment  had  any  more  definite  ideas  with  regard  to  her  personality. 

The  corresponding  pair  on  the  left  must  be  Bouzyges  with  his  wife.  For  the  Bouzygai,  with  their 
great  ancestor  Bouzyges,  correspond  in  antiquity  and  importance  to  the  Eteoboutadai  with  their  hero 
Boutes.8  The  two  priestly  clans  together  represent  the  oldest  forms  of  worship  on  the  Citadel  rock  ; 
and  as  Boutes  is  closely  connected  with  Poseidon-Erechtheus,  so  is  Bouzyges  with  Athena  and 
Kekrops  The  Athena,  planter  of  the  Olive  who  sheds  her  glory  on  the  pediment,  is  the  goddess  of 
agriculture,  and  the  earth-born  Kekrops  is  the  king  of  Athens  in  that  most  ancient  time  when  she  was 
still  purely  agricultural.  But  to  them  belongs,  as  an  addition  necessary  to  their  completeness,  the 

contradiction  to  the  few  facts  that  we  know.  Ed.  Meyer  (Forschung  z.  altei - Gesck.  p.  142)  is  in  the  main  correct 
in  his  judgment  ; but  he  should  have  laid  more  stress  on  the  ancient  connexion  of  Ion  with  Apollo  Patroos  and 
Hypakraios,  with  his  grotto  in  the  Citadel  rock,  and  the  daughter  of  Erechtheus  established  there.  Meyer  is 
doubtless  right  in  making  Ion  and  Xouthos  come  from  outside  ; but  Xouthos  Ion  is  later  than  Apollo-Kreousa-Ion, 
who  are  connected  with  the  introduction  of  the  cultus  of  Apollo  Patroos  into  Athens  ; the  cultus  may  however 
have  been  introduced  at  a comparatively  late  date. 

1 With  regard  to  the  Tetrapolis  as  the  proper  home  of  Ion,  cf.  Kirchner,  Attica  et  Peloponnestaca, 
Greifswalder  Dissert.  1850,  p.  16.  2 Cf.  Busolt,  Griecli.  Gesch.  i.  392,  n.  6. 

3 Hesiod  apud  Tzetzes  ad  Lycophr.  284  (frg.  27,  Rzach). 

4 I have  tried  to  show  in  Samin.  Sabouroff,  i.  Vasen,  Introd.  p.  14,  that  the  myth  of  Ion,  Kreousa,  and  Apollo  is 
represented  also  on  Attic  vases  of  later  style  (which  however  may  well  belong  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century)  ; but 
by  that  time  they  are  probably  dependent  on  Sophokles  and  Euripides. 

5 Her  name  varies  in  the  tradition  ; there  is  also  a version  that  more  than  one  daughter  was  sacrificed,  or 
that  her  sisters  voluntarily  followed  her  in  her  death.  In  the  Erechtheus  of  Euripides  only  one  daughter  was 
sacrificed  (Lykourgos  against  Leokr.  98) ; in  the  Ion,  on  the  contrary  (277  set/.),  the  poet  represents  the  daughters 
of  Erechtheus  as  sacrificed  ; only  Kreousa  escaped.  The  myth  fluctuated  therefore  even  in  the  time  of  Euripides. 

6 Cf.  Topffer,  Att.  Geneal.  113  s</t/. 

7 Hesiod,  frg.  124,  Rzach.  Cf.  Topffer,  toe.  cit.  114  ; also  Bohlau,  in  Bonner  Studien,  p.  126  st/q. 

8 Cf.  especially  Topffer,  Att.  Gen.  p.  136  sqq. 


THE  EASTERN  PEDIMENT 


463 


hero  Bouzyges,1  the  first  in  Kekropian  Athens  to  lay  the  yoke  upon  the  oxen  and  to  furrow  with  the 
plough  the  fields  which  spread  around  the  rock  of  the  Citadel.  His  plough  was  shown  on  the  Akropolis, 
which  had  been  his  abode.  In  the  ordinary  mythology,  it  is  true,  he  was  thrust  into  the  background 
by  the  Eleusinian  Triptolcmos.  But  in  the  worship  of  the  state  this  was  not  so  : there  Bouzyges 
alone  was  regarded  as  the  first  plougher,  and  the  priestly  family  of  the  Bouzygai  maintained  itself  as 
high  in  reverent  estimation  as  that  of  the  Eteoboutadai.  Every  year  on  the  sacred  plough-land  at  the 
foot  of  the  Citadel  the  solemn  ploughing,  the  Upos  aporos,  was  performed  by  the  priests,  and  the 
produce  of  this  field  was  dedicated  to  Athena,2  who  thereby  appears  as  the  supreme  patroness  of  agri- 
culture. In  other  respects  also  Bouzyges  is  specially  connected  with  Athena  : it  was  he,  according  to  the 
old  myth,  who  received  the  true  Palladion  from  Demophon.3  Moreover,  the  Bouzygai  held  the  priest- 
hood of  Zeus  ev  IIaXXa8ia>,  in  whose  temple  Athena  was  also  worshipped.  A statue  of  Polias,  dedicated, 
according  to  the  inscription,  by  one  of  the  Bouzygai,4  seems  to  have  stood  in  this  very  place. 

Tradition  does  not  tell  us  the  name  of  Bouzyges’s  wife,  whom  we  conjecture  to  have  been  in 
the  gap.  But  we  do  know  that  the  conjugal  relation  formed  a necessary  part  of  the  conception  of 
Bouzyges,  for  the  Bouzygai  likewise  held  the  priesthood  of  Zeus  Teleios,  the  tutelary  god  of  wedded 
life.  In  fact,  the  ancient  view,  as  is  well  known,  treated  marriage  as  the  social  outcome  of  the  con- 
dition of  human  life  regulated  by  agriculture  ; and  Bouzyges  himself  seems  to  have  had  the  credit  for 
introducing  wedded  life,  or,  as  the  old  symbolic  expression  ran,  the  yap.r)\ios  aporos ,5 * 

At  the  time  of  the  sacred  ploughing,  the  successors  of  Bouzyges  every  year  proclaimed  at  the  foot 
of  the  Citadel  the  curse  against  those  who  violated  the  most  general  laws  of  morality,  the  injunctions 
comprised  by  the  German  poet  in  the  simple  sentence,  ‘ Man  must  be  noble,  helpful,  and  good.’  Thus 
the  hero  Bouzyges  is  at  the  same  time  the  representative  of  all  true  humanity  and  goodness.  This 
the  artist  expressed  in  the  special  and  singular  beauty  of  his  form,  which  is  neither  highly  developed 
by  athletic  exercise  nor  powerful  in  divinity,  but  gentle  and  of  that  true  human  beauty  which  makes 
the  Bouzyges  of  the  pediment,  even  in  his  present  mutilated  state,  dear  to  us  above  all  the  other 
remains  of  the  Parthenon. 

We  have  now  finished  our  interpretation,  which,  when  once  we  had  set  the  problem  before 
ourselves  correctly,  followed  point  by  point  almost  as  inevitably  as  in  a mathematical  proof ; and 
this  is  certainly  the  best  warrant  for  its  correctness.  It  has  now  brought  us  to  this  result  : we  see 
grouped  around  the  contending  deities  on  the  Citadel  none  but  persons  who  in  all  the  phases  of  their 
lives  are  connected  with  this  Citadel  rock,  and  who,  above  all,  must  have  been  intelligible  to  every 
Athenian,  since  they  expressed,  not  far-fetched  wisdom,  but  only  that  which  was  known  to  all  and 
believed  by  all.  Now  for  the  first  time  we  understand  how  Pheidias,  besides  all  his  other  qualities, 
was  an  artist  for  the  people,  since  he  was  able  to  give  form  to  that  which  was  in  the  heart  of 
every  Athenian. 

The  east  pediment  is  far  easier  to  explain  than  the  west. 

Sauer’s  excellent  investigations  (Fig.  184)°  have  brought  11s  certainty  with  regard  to  the  disposition 
of  the  central  group/  ■ What  formerly  could  only  be  conjectured  may  now  be  asserted  as  sure.  The  relief 
at  Madrid  giving  the  birth  of  Athena  7 agrees  with  the  composition  of  the  east  pediment,  as  preserved 
by  the  traces  on  the  floor  of  the  pediment : Zeus  enthroned,  in  profile  towards  the  right  ; Athena, 
in  full-grown  form  without  any  external  connexion,  standing  in  front  of  him  or  advancing.  The  style 
of  the  Madrid  relief  also  points  to  a Pheidian  original  of  the  time  of  the  pediment.  The  motive 
of  Zeus  resembles  that  of  the  statue  by  Pheidias  at  Olympia  ; the  cloak  in  the  arrangement  and 
treatment  of  the  folds,  the  form  of  the  throne,  and  equally  the  type  of  Athena  are  quite  in  the  style 
of  the  frieze  and  pediments  of  the  Parthenon.  Thus  there  can  be  no  further  doubt  that  the  relief 
at  Madrid  is  really  dependent  on  the  east  pediment.  The  Nike  also,  who  hovers  between  the  two 
deities,  and  fills  the  gap  with  her  significant  figure,  must  be  derived  from  the  original,  where  she 
would  have  been  made  fast  to  the  background  of  the  pediment,  now  lost.8 

It  is  further  to  be  inferred  that  the  figure  of  Prometheus  or  Hephaistos  with  the  axe,  which 
stands  in  the  relief  behind  the  throne  of  Zeus,  is  likewise  taken  from  the  pediment  ; it  is,  in  fact,  quite 
in  the  style  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  (cf.  eg.  Michaelis,  North,  44,  58).  Since  the  process  of  birth  is  now 
fully  complete,  and  Athena  is  in  the  act  of  moving  rapidly  away  from  her  father,  the  personage  who 

1 Cf.  also  Preller,  Demeter  unci  Persephone , p.  290.  2 Topffer,  loc.  cit.  137,  n.  1. 

8 Polyaen , i.  5.  Cf.  Topffer,  loc.  cit.  146.  4 C.  /.  A.  iii.  71.  Cf.  Topffer,  loc.  cit.  145  scq. 

6 Topffer,  loc.  cit.  147.  6 Ath.  Mitth.  xvi.  68  sqq.,  81  sqq. 

7 Schneider,  Geburt  d.  Athena , PL  1 ; Wiener  Vorlegebl.  viii.  PI.  11. 

8 An  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  central  group  with  Nike  has  recently  been  published  by  Jan  Six  (Jahrb.  d. 

Inst.  1894,  p.  84). 


6*  / 


THE  EASTERN  PEDIMENT 


465 


has  been  assisting  in  the  birth  cannot  possibly  have  stood  with  his  weapon  still  uplifted  for  the  blow. 
Cn  the  other  hand,  the  dealer  of  that  blow  must  have  stood  immediately  behind  Zeus.  We  require 
in  the  pediment,  therefore,  exactly  what  the  relief  gives  us.  But  this  makes  it  impossible  to  regard 
the  torso  Id  in  the  right  half  of  the  pediment  as  Hephaistos.  And  in  fact  this  common  hypothesis 
shows  great  want  of  reflexion,  since  it  is  quite  impossible  that  Hephaistos  with  uplifted  axe  should 
stand  behind  Athena  instead  of  behind  Zeus.  We  must  rather  accept  the  view  already  put  forward 
by  Friederichs  1 and  Michaelis,2  that  H is  simply  a god  who  draws  back  in  astonishment  before 
Athena,  lifting  up  his  right  arm3  in  a motive  that  is  closely  connected  with  the  Marsyas  of 
Myron,  and  also  with  the  Poseidon  of  the  west  pediment.4  The  name  of  the  god  we  may  leave 
undetermined. 

Next  to  the  four  central  figures  comes  on  each  side,  as  Sauer  has  shown,  a seated  personage 
seen  in  profile,  and  of  course  turned  towards  the  centre.  We  may  conjecture  them  to  be  Hera  and 
Poseidon.5 6  Behind  these  sitting  figures  come  on  each  side  two  who  were  standing  (Nos.  4 and  5 of 
either  side,  counting  from  the  middle) ; of  these  we  know  nothing.0  Apollo,  Artemis,  Ares  suggest 
themselves.  Then  follows  on  the  left  as  No.  6 the  female  figure  moving  rapidly  towards  the  left 
which  is  commonly  called  Iris.  The  pendant  to  her  is  lost.  The  name  of  Iris  for  this  hastening 
maiden  has  recently  been  abandoned,  and  rightly.7  As  she  has  no  wings,  Iris  is  impossible. 
But  in  itself  the  idea  that  this  maiden  is  hastening  to  carry  a message  from  Olympos — the 
announcement  of  Athena’s  birth — is  a mistaken  one.  The  whole  space  enclosed  within  the  border 
of  the  pediment  is  in  fact  Olympos  : no  one  is  hastening  forth  from  it.  But  the  gods  were  assuredly 
in  great  astonishment  and  excitement,  as  is  shown  by  the  torso  H.  As  he  is  starting  back  from 
the  sudden  radiant  apparition  in  the  centre,  so  the  maiden  is  fleeing  away  in  fear,  although  at  the 
same  time,  spell-bound  by  the  apparition,  she  turns  her  head  back  towards  it.  The  forms  are  so  very 
youthful  and  immature  that  Brunn’s  interpretation  of  the  figure  as  Hebe  no  doubt  hits  the  mark. 
The  presence  near  at  hand  of  Hera  on  her  throne,  whom  we  suppose  to  have  been  on  this  side, 
would  agree  well  with  this  hypothesis. 

The  two  groups  in  the  angles,  which  follow  next,  are  completely  preserved.  The  name  of  Helios 
for  the  man  in  the  left  angle  is  however  the  only  one  wholly  beyond  doubt.  The  goddess  corre- 
sponding to  him  is  now  ascertained  to  have  been  driving  away  on  a quadriga , and  therefore  does  not 
display  the ‘rider  type’  hitherto  known  for  Selene  in  Pheidian  monuments.8  It  is  therefore  more 
probable  that  the  figure  should  be  called  Nyx.9  whom  some  beautiful  lines  from  the  Andromeda  of 
Euripides  depict  for  us  driving  her  team  of  horses  through  the  aether  of  lofty  Olympos.10 

On  Olympos,  Day  and  Night  alike  move  on  their  way  ; they  are  among  the  most  natural 
and  necessary  witnesses  and  participators  in  all  that  happens  in  heaven.  Therefore  Helios  and 
Nyx  are  not  mere  indications  of  place,  not  mere  accessories  in  the  pediment;  they  belong  to  the 
persons  most  closely  concerned.  Even  Nyx,  who  must  withdraw  before  the  rising  Helios,  turns 
back  her  head  to  look  at  the  action  in  the  centre.  Only  figures  that  have  their  place  on  Olympos 
can  come  next  to  Helios  and  Nyx,  and  most  probably  divinities  bearing  a certain  relation  to  those 
two,  especially  since  they  are  turning  towards  them  and  away  from  the  middle.  Nor  must  we 
conjecture  them  to  be  great  deities,  since  these  would  be  taking  a stronger  interest  in  the  central  event 
— the  birth  of  a new  comrade,  a goddess  equal  to  themselves.  The  group  of  the  great  deities  was 

1 Bausteine,  p.  143.  The  passage  has  not  really  been  improved  by  the  changes  introduced  by  Wolters,  p.  253. 

2 Parthenon,  p.  175. 

3 Only  the  right  arm  was  lifted  up,  not  both  as  is  generally  stated.  The  difference  in  the  marking  of  the 
muscles  on  back  and  breast  between  the  two  sides  shows  this  indubitably. 

4 The  affinity  of  the  Poseidon  to  Myron’s  Marsyas  has  already  been  pointed  out  by  E.  A.  Gardner  in  the 
/.  H.  S.  iii.  254. 

5 Cf.  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1874,  p.  19  seq.  There  is  a fragment  of  a head  that  Sauer  ( Festschrift  fur 
Overbeck,  p.  74  sqq. ) thinks  may  be  ascribed  to  the  sitting  figure  on  the  right : she  would  then  be  Hera.  Between 
her  and  Athena  he  supposes  a goddess  bearing  a torch  (on  account  of  a fragment  of  a hand) : if  this  is  so,  the 
torso  H would  be  most  suitably  placed  farther  to  the  right  behind  Hera. 

6 That  the  torso  I,  which  Sauer  also  sets  on  the  right  in  the  fifth  place,  does  not  belong  here  but  in  the  west 
pediment,  we  have  shown  supra,  p.  445. 

7 Brunn  ( loc . cit.  19)  looked  on  her  as  Plebe,  Murray  as  Eileithyia,  Wolters  left  her  name  undetermined.  Cf. 

A.  H.  Smith,  Catal.  of  Sculpt,  i.  303  G. 

8 [To  the  types  of  Selene  as  rider,  already  enumerated  by  Furtwangler,  Samm.  Sabouroff,  text  to  PI.  63, 
and  by  Cecil  Smith,  J.  H.  S.  ix.  p.  1 seq. , must  be  added  a charming  red-figured  lekythos  from  Livadhia  in  Boeotia, 
now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  George  Macmillan.  Selene  riding  is  represented  quite  in  the  motive  of  the  Selene  on 
the  well-known  Florence  vase  ; she  holds  a two-pronged  wand  ; above  the  wand  a single  star.  Height  6\  in. — E.  S.] 

9 As  is  rightly  observed  by  E.  Sellers  in  the  Classical  Review,  vi.  370. 

10  Aristoph.  Thesm.  1065  (Eurip.  frg.  114).  Cf.  Robert  in  Hermes,  xix.  467  ; Samm.  Sabouroff,  ii.  Supp.  p.  5. 
Since  however  the  poetry  of  the  earlier  period  represents  Selene  also  as  driving  on  a chariot  (cf.  Samm.  Sabouroff, 
i.  on  PI.  63),  the  decision  is  not  certain  : it  is,  however,  of  little  importance,  since  the  idea  is  after  all  the  same. 


0 


466 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


clearly  bounded  on  the  left  by  the  terrified  Hebe,  on  the  right  by  the  pendant  to  her,  now  lost.  The 
cosmic  conception,  made  clear  by  the  figures  of  Helios  and  Nyx,  excludes  deities  of  merely  local 
Attic  significance,  limited  to  a definite  spot.1  Athena  is  not  being  born  for  Attika  alone,  but  for  the 
whole  world,  far  as  the  rays  of  Helios  pierce  and  the  veil  of  night  obscures.2 

Beyond  this,  the  arrangement  of  the  figures  in  question  gives  us  yet  another  definite  b^sis  of 
investigation.  As  was  already  shown  by  Carrey’s  drawing,  and  as  is  confirmed  by  Sauer,3  the  three 
women  on  the  right  formed  a closely  united  group  : the  first  leans  on  the  lap  of  the  second,  and  her 
right  arm  appeared  supported  on  the  lap  of  the  third.4  We  have  to  keep  in  view  in  our  interpretation 
the  certain  fact  that  we  have  here  a triad  of  goddesses.5  It  is  not  so  on  the  left,  since  there  we  find  a 
pair  of  goddesses  on  thrones,  and  by  them  a youth  on  a rock,  who  is  turned  toward  Helios,  and  is  not 
in  any  specially  close  connexion  with  the  two  figures. 

Those  three  goddesses  turned  towards  the  darkness  of  night  can  be  no  others  than  the  Moirai — and 
in  fact  they  have  been  so  explained  by  most  of  the  earlier  interpreters,  with  Visconti  at  their  head.  They 
are  doubtless  those  three  sisters,  who  could  not  possibly  be  absent  at  a birth,  least  of  all  on  Olympos. 
The  goddesses  of  fate  were  in  fact  at  all  times  conceived  as  present  at  births,  which  is  the  reason  that 
in  Pindar  Eileithyia  appears  in  company  with  the  Moirai.  They  are  the  daughters  of  Night  in  Hesiod,6 
whom  Pheidias  has  followed  elsewhere  also  (as  is  shown  by  the  birth  of  Aphrodite  and  that  of  Pandora, 
in  the  reliefs  on  the  pedestals  of  Zeus  and  the  Parthenon)  ; this  is  the  reason  that  they  are  here  turned 
towards  Nyx  : eucoXci/oi  Kovpai  Nvktos,  they  were  called  likewise  by  an  unknown  poet  of  the  fifth 
century.7  They  are  goddesses  of  the  widest  cosmic  importance,  just  such  as  we  should  wish  to  find 
in  this  position.  They  weave  and  spin  the  world’s  future  ; already  in  the  Homeric  poems  they 
are  the  *X coder,  the  spinning  sisters.  As  Sauer  has  observed,8  the  tranquil  recumbent  figure  M holds 
in  her  raised  left  hand  a staff-like  attribute,  the  end  of  which  was  loosely  placed  among  the  drapery  of 
the  upper  part  of  the  leg.  This  agrees  excellently  with  the  supposition  that  she  held  a distaff  in  the 
left  hand,  while  the  right  drew  the  thread  ; the  others  would  have  been  without  attributes,  since  the 
shears  and  the  globe  belong  to  an  allegorizing  fashion  of  much  later  times.  In  the  old  days  all  three 
were  spinners  only. 

But  besides  their  widespread  importance,  they  have  also  a specially  close  connexion  with  the 
two  principal  personages  of  the  scene, — with  Zeus,  who  was  worshipped  as  Motpayrr^y,  and  with  the 
Athena  of  the  Akropolis.  An  old  decree  concerning  the  worship  of  Polias  on  the  Citadel  shows,  as  it 
seems,  that  the  Praxiergidai — whose  duty  it  was  to  put  on  and  take  off  the  Peplos  of  Polias — had,  in 
connexion  with  this,  to  pay  honour  to  the  Moirai  and  to  their  head,  Zeus  Moiragetes.9  If  any  one 
finds  a difficulty  in  the  fact  that  the  spinning  sisters  of  heaven,  the  daughters  of  Night,  are  here 
represented  as  so  beautiful,  he  is  certainly  in  error.  It  should  be  remembered  that  in  Athens 
Aphrodite  Ourania  was  held  to  be  the  eldest  of  the  Moirai,  which  shows  that  they  were  not  conceived 
as  ugly.  Pheidias  has  represented  them  as  evu>\evoi,  the  name  given  them  by  the  poet  mentioned 
above.  And  moreover  the  motive  which  so  strongly  suggests  Aphrodite,  the  chiton  slipping  down 
from  one  shoulder  (on  Fig.  M),  is  known  as  occurring  several  times  in  representations  of  the  Moirai, 
and  also  in  a beautiful  statue  of  Dike,  a goddess  nearly  allied  to  them.10 

Finally,  we  have  further  corroboration  in  the  fact  that  the  Madrid  relief  likewise  gives  us  the 
three  Moirai  present  at  Athena’s  birth.  It  is  true  that  they  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  figures 
of  the  pediment  ; types  of  much  later  date  have  been  chosen  here.  But  this  is  easily  explicable  by 
the  fact  that  the  groups  disposed  so  as  to  suit  the  angles  of  a pediment  were  not  available  for  the 
artist  of  the  relief  on  a circular  pedestal  ; he  adhered  in  subject  only  to  the  east  pediment,  and  took 
the  motives  from  elsewhere. 

The  Moirai  of  the  right  side  help  us  to  explain  also  the  two  women  of  the  left  half : they  must 
be  the  Horai,  and  they  too  have  been  already  recognized  by  earlier  writers.11  These  are  the  most 

1 Therefore  the  ‘ Dew  Sisters,’  the  daughters  of  Kekrops,  are  impossible  : they  would  be  as  unsuitable  here 
as  they  are  necessary  in  the  west  pediment. 

2 Cf.  also  Brunn,  Bayr.  Sitzungsber.  1874,  p.  14. 

3 loc.  cit.  83. 

4 So  represented  by  Carrey. 

5 This  excludes  Petersen’s  interpretation  of  them  as  Hestia,  Peitho,  Aphrodite. 

6 Theog.  217.  The  Charites  have  recently  also  been  suggested  (Collignon,  Phidias,  p.  46),  and  in  many 
respects  would  be  suitable  ; but  they  are  excluded  by  the  fact  that  they  would  have  no  connexion  with  a scene  of 
birth,  or  with  Nyx. 

7 Bergk,  Poetae  Melici,  frg.  adesp.  140. 

8 loc.  cit.  83. 

9 C.  I.  A.  i.  93.  In  line  12  it  seems  to  me  clear  that  Moi'jpais,  Ail  Moipayerrj... should  be  restored. 

10  Milchhofer,  in  the  Jahrb.  d.  Inst.  vii.  (1892),  p.  206  seq. 

11  First  by  Brondsted,  Millingen,  Lloyd  ; later  notably  by  Brunn. 


MOIRAI  AND  HORAI 


46; 


complete  counterpart  to  the  Moirai,  very  closely  akin  to  them,  and  yet  on  the  other  hand  sufficiently 
distinct  ; from  old  times  poets  and  artists  had  been  fond  of  uniting  and  contrasting  the  two  groups.1 
The  Horai  also  are  pre-eminently  appropriate  at  a birth,  since  they  bring  on  the  due  time  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  birth,  and  like  the  Moirai  they  were  conceived  as  protecting  births.2  They 
also  were  represented  in  early  times  as  weaving  or  spinning.3  But  while  the  Moirai  embodied 
the  unknown  dispensations  of  the  powers  of  destiny,  and  are  therefore  represented  by  Pheidias 
as  resting  on  rocks  in  careless  self-abandonment,  the  Horai  personified  the  conception  of 
conscious  adherence  to  law  ; this  contrast  is  especially  brought  out  in  the  names  which  are  given 
to  Horai  and  Moirai  in  another  passage  of  the  Hesiodic  Theogony,4  and  which  afterwards 
became  very  popular.  It  represents  the  Horai  and  Moirai  as  sisters,  alike  the  children  of  Zeus 
by  Themis  ; but  while  the  names  Klotho,  Lachesis,  Atropos  indicate  the  blind  decrees  of  fate,  the 
Horai  are  called  Eunomia,  Dike,  and  Eirene  : it  is  in  law  and  right  that  they  have  dominion. 
Conscious  of  this  contrast,  Pheidias  made  the  Horai  sitting  on  thrones  and  maintaining  a tranquil 
dignity.  The  old  statues  of  the  Horai  by  Srnilis  in  the  Heraion  at  Olympia  in  like  manner  sat  upon 
thrones  : \nrapo6povoi  they  are  called  by  the  poet  above  mentioned,  who  invokes  them  with  the 
Moirai,  and  Pindar  designates  them  as  eudpovo t.5 6 

Finally,  the  position  of  the  two  enthroned  women  in  the  pediment  agrees  excellently  with  the 
interpretation  of  them  as  Horai.  They  are  on  the  side  where  we  have  placed  Hera  and  Iris.  The 
close  connexion  of  the  Horai  with  Hera  is  well  known  ; they  already  appear  in  the  Iliad  as  attendants 
assigned  to  her.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Horai  are  as  closely  associated  with  Helios,  as  the  Moirai  with 
Nyx.  It  was  precisely  in  Athens  that  took  place  the  processions  called  Eiresione,  which,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Theophrastos,  were  in  honour  of  Helios  and  the  Horai.0  And  lastly  Brunn  has 
already  pointed  out  that  the  Horai,  who,  according  to  the  Iliad,  open  and  shut  the  gates  of  Olympos, 
are  most  suitably  placed  just  here  at  the  end  of  the  pediment  near  Helios. 

As  for  the  number  of  Horai  represented,  there  is  as  much  evidence  for  a group  of  two  as  for  one 
of  three.  The  Horai  as  two  are  known  on  works  of  art  of  various  places  from  early  times,  and  even 
as  late  as  the  fourth  century  ; 7 at  Athens  notably  we  know  from  express  testimony  that  two  Horai 
were  worshipped  under  the  names  Thallo  and  Karpo,  designating  the  two  principal  seasons  of  the 
year — the  time  of  blossoming  and  that  of  fruit.8  This  of  course  does  not  at  all  exclude  the  represen- 
tation of  the  Horai  by  Attic  artists  also  as  three,  in  accordance  with  the  more  generally  accepted  Hesiodic 
tradition.9  When  Pheidias,  on  the  contrary,  gave  the  preference  to  the  group  of  two,  no  doubt  artistic 
considerations  had  most  weight  with  him  in  this  decision.  The  third  figure  must  be  recumbent ; but 
if  he  represented  two  Horai  enthroned  he  could  not  make  the  third  lying  down  ; moreover,  it  must 
have  accorded  much  better  with  his  efforts  after  a pleasing  variety  to  have  a male  figure  here 
answering  to  the  outstretched  female  figure  on  the  other  side. 

This  male  figure  is  sufficiently  characterized  to  make  it  possible  to  assign  him  a definite  name.  The 
powerful  youth  with  muscles  steeled  by  exercise  and  with  short  close-cropped  hair  10  reclines  upon  a 
rock  over  which  he  has  spread  the  skin  of  a wild  beast,  and  over  that  his  cloak  ; the  left  hand  held  a 
bronze  attribute,11  and  his  feet  had  a covering  of  the  same  metal.12  Herakles  has  been  suggested  on 
account  of  the  skin,  but  the  monuments  show  us  that  he  would  not  have  spread  a garment  over  it : 
moreover,  the  skin  would  need  to  be  a distinct  lion’s  skin  ; and  the  covering  of  the  feet  excludes 
Herakles,  apart  from  the  fact  that  he  would  be  a quite  inappropriate  figure  here.13  Dionysos  again  is 
entirely  impossible,  on  account  of  the  powerful  form  and  the  smooth  short  hair.  Although  Dionysos 


1 Cf.  e.g.  the  passage  of  the  lyric  poem  cited  above,  where  Moirai  and  Horai  are  invoked  together 
(Bergk,  Poetae  Mel.  frg.  adesp.  140).  Cf.  also  the  Amyklaian  Throne  (altar-relief),  and  the  Zeus  of 
Theokosmos  at  Megara  (Paus.  i.  40,  4).  An  equally  favourite  contrast  was  that  of  Horai  and  Charites. 

2 Cf.  Rapp  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  273S  seq. 

3 Cf.  ibid.  2715. 

4 Hes.  Th.  901  sqq. 

5 Cf.  supra , n.  1.  Pind.  Pyth.  9,  60. 

6 Apud  Porphyr.  De  Abstin.  ii.  7,  Schol.  Aristoph.  Equ.  729 ; Plut.  1054.  Properly  it  was  Apollo, 
who  was  identified  with  Helios.  Cf.  Mannhardt,  Antike  Feld-  und  Waldkulte,  217  seq. 

7 Cf.  the  old  Ionic  Phineus  Kylix  (Mon.  d.  Inst.  10,  8),  the  table  of  Damophon  at  Megalopolis,  Paus. 
viii.  31,  3,  and  the  Tarentine  vase  of  the  fourth  century,  Stephani,  Compte  Rendu , 1862,  PL  4. 

8 Paus.  ix.  35,  2. 

9 Cf.  the  Franfois  Vase  and  the  Cylix  by  Sosias  (Berlin,  2278). 

10  Cf.  the  more  accurate  account  given  by  me  in  Arch.  Zeitg.  1881,  p.  304,  from  the  original,  and  the 
correction  of  the  mistaken  assertion  made  by  Overbeck  (and  lately  repeated  by  A.  PI.  Smith,  in  the  Catal.  of 
Sculpt,  i.  107)  that  he  had  plaits  behind. 

11  Sauer,  loc.  cit.  82. 

13  Cf.  ibid. 

13  Cf.  Petersen,  Phidias,  p.  1 18. 


468 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


in  the  time  of  Pheidias  was  certainly  represented  as  beardless  and  with  short  hair,1  and  in  fact 
appears  in  this  guise  in  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  (cf.  supra , p.  431),  yet  there  are  no  analogies  at  all 
for  the  representation  with  such  smooth  uncurled  hair  as  we  see  here.  On  the  contrary,  the  only 
parallels  for  this  are  found  on  heads  of  athletes  and  similar  figures.  In  addition  to  this  the  forehead 
too,  with  its  marked  protuberances  towards  the  middle,2  resembles  the  forehead  of  athletes  and 
heroes,  especially  those  of  the  Myronian  school. 

In  fact,  there  is  only  one  interpretation  which  satisfies  all  requirements  : the  man  is  Kephalos ,3 
the  beautiful  hunter.4  Everything  is  explicable  on  this  interpretation  ; the  skin  is  just  the 
characteristic  of  a hunter,  and  it  is  precisely  to  a hunter  that  the  covering  of  the  feet  also  is  appro- 
priate. To  him  also  are  suitable  the  strong  beautiful  form,  the  athletic  head,  and  the  rocky  seat. 
And  Kephalos  is  also  the  only  man  who  is  fitting  in  this  position  close  to  Helios  ; and  he  is  the  only 
person  with  regard  to  whom  it  is  not  disturbing,  to  whom  it  is  even  quite  suitable,  that  he  (as  was 
required  by  parallelism  with  the  Moirai  on  the  other  side)  should  take  no  interest  in  the  event  going 
on  in  the  centre,  but  should  sit  quietly  turned  towards  the  angle  and  Helios.  When  the  sun  rose 
yonder  behind  Hymettos,  then  the  Athenians  of  Pheidias’s  time,  as  we  are  shown  by  a beautiful 
painted  vase,  bethought  themselves  of  Kephalos,  who  was  carried  off  thence  by  Eos.5 

It  is  precisely  on  vases  of  the  Periklean  period  that  the  myth  of  Kephalos  is  specially  popular. 
Eos  carries  off  the  beautiful  youth  whom  she  loves  to  the  place  where  her  home  is  on  the  boundary 
of  heaven,  by  the  stream  Okeanos  ; there  he  begets  by  her  the  dazzling  Phaethon,  the  morning 
and  evening  star.6  Thus  Kephalos  sits  in  the  pediment  close  to  the  edge  of  Okeanos,  the  waves 
of  which  reached  to  his  feet.7  The  bronze  attribute  which  he  carried  in  his  left  hand  is  naturally  to 
be  explained  as  the  lance  which  is  in  fact  characteristic  of  Kephalos  as  huntsman,  and  without  which 
he  hardly  ever  appears  on  the  monuments.8 9  The  lance  rested  on  his  left  shoulder  ; the  right  hand 
we  may  conjecture  to  have  been  without  attribute,  and  raised  in  greeting  to  Helios. 

It  was  a specially  skilful  idea  of  Pheidias  to  place  a figure  so  well  known,  and  so  dear  to  every 
Athenian  as  Kephalos  was,  between  Helios  and  the  Horai  at  the  entrance  to  Olympos,  where 
Okeanos  flows  round  it.  At  the  same  time  he  has  made,  in  the  strong  and  youthful  figure  who  bathes 
his  breast  in  the  ruddiness  of  morning,  a splendid  counterpart  to  the  deceptive  beautiful  Fates,  akin 
to  the  darkness  of  night,  who  spin  the  mysterious  future. 

Thus  in  the  eastern  pediment  also,  as  in  the  western  one,  Pheidias  represents  only  easily 
intelligible  and  truly  living  figures  : at  this  end  as  at  the  other,  his  creations  are  both  poetical  and 
popular. 


VII.  The  Earth  Goddess  entreating  for  Rain , near  the  Parthenon. 

In  front  of  the  north  side  of  the  Parthenon,  cut  in  the  living  rock,  runs  the  inscription,  belonging 
perhaps  to  the  time  of  Hadrian,  Tijs  Kapnopopov  Kara  pavretav?  Here  must  likewise  have  stood 
the  image  described  by  Pausanias  in  his  Periegesis  of  the  Akropolis  (i.  24,  3)  as  Tt]s  ayd\p.a 
iKtTevovcrrjs  vcral  ot  rov  A [a  : it  showed  the  goddess  Earth  entreating  heaven  for  rain.  A drought 

1 Some  early  examples  of  the  beardless  Dionysos  I have  mentioned  in  Samm.  Sabouroff,  on  PI.  23,  n.  6 (cf. 
besides,  Back,  in  Fleckeisen' s Jahrb.  1887,  445  sqq. ) The  type  of  the  golden  mask  from  Kertsch  there  cited  by 
me  was  no  doubt  created  in  the  fifth  century,  in  the  Pheidian  period  ; it  gives  the  god  curly  hair,  abundant 
but  not  long.  On  the  Attic  vases,  also,  of  the  time  of  the  pediment,  the  beardless  Dionysos  is  not 
unfrequent;  but  he  has  always  abundant  and  rather  long  curls  (cf.  the  Melian  ‘Giant’  Vase;  also  Samm. 
Sabouroff,  PI.  55,  57). 

2 In  the  original,  and  even  in  good  photographs,  very  plainly  to  be  seen  in  spite  of  the  weathering. 

3 The  interpretation  has  been  already  brought  forward  by  Brondsted.  Brunn’s  explanation  of  the  figure  as 
Olympos  is  at  once  excluded  by  the  fact  that  neither  Greek  poetry  nor  Greek  art  knows  any  personification 
of  the  mountain  Olympos  (cf.  supra,  p.  458,  n.  3). 

4 That  he  is  beautiful  and  that  he  is  a hunter  are  his  two  principal  characteristics  in  the  myth. 

“ The  so-called  ‘ Blacas  Krater,  ’ Mon.  d.  Inst.  ii.  53  ; Gerhard,  Gesamm.  Abh.  PI.  5,  2;  Rpscher’s  Lex.  i. 
2010.  The  rape  of  Kephalos  was  localized  on  Hymettos. 

6 So  Plesiod,  Theog.  986.  Cf.  particularly  von  Wilamowitz,  in  Hermes,  xviii.  421  sqq.  Since  Kephalos  was 
of  course  conceived  as  dwelling  and  living  with  Eos  in  heaven,  I do  not  understand  Petersen’s  objection  ( Phidias , 
p.  1 19)  to  his  presence  in  the  pediment.  With  regard  to  the  original  identity  of  Kephalos  and  Orion,  see  von 
Wilamowitz,  toe.  cit.  425  ; Rapp  in  Roscher’s  Lex.  ii.  1097. 

7 According  to  the  position  of  the  figure  established  by  Sauer. 

8 Especially  similar  to  the  representation  in  the  pediment  are  the  coins  from  Pale  in  Kephallenia  (Head,  Hist. 
Nam.  p.  358),  to  which  Miss  J.  E.  Harrison  has  courteously  drawn  my  attention.  Kephalos,  known  with  certainty 
from  the  inscription,  is  seen  sitting  on  a rock  and  holding  a spear. 

9 C.  I.  A.  iii.  166.  Cf.  Heydemann,  in  Hermes , iv.  381  sqq.  Petersen  (Lanckoronski,  Stddte  in  Pamphylien 
und  Pisidien,  ii.  p.  50  seq.)  proved  the  worship  of  Ge  Karpophoros  at  Termessos  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  shrine 
of  Zeus  Solymeus  and  of  another  belonging  to  Zeus  and  Dione.  He  there  recalls  how  at  Athens  likewise  Ge 
Karpophoros  was  close  to  the  place  where  Zeus  ( i.e . Polieus)  was  worshipped. 


EARTH  GODDESS 


469 


Fig.  185. — Attic 
sea  . 


had  of  course  been  the  occasion  of  its  erection,  but  Pausanias  gives  no  more  exact  details.  The 
supposition  is  certainly  right  that  only  the  upper  part  of  the  form  of  the  goddess  was  represented, 
and  that  being  placed  immediately  on  the  rocky  ground  she  seemed  to  be  rising  out  of  it.1  Even  if 
the  image  was  not  older  than  the  inscription  (doubtless  however  merely  a restoration 
of  an  older  one),  yet  the  subject  and  the  type  certainly  belong  to  a far  earlier  time. 

For  determining  the  way  in  which  this  type  is  to  be  conceived,  and  whence  it 
was  derived,  the  interesting  little  monument  given  in  Fig.  185  seems  to  me  to  be  of 
importance.  It  is  the  impression  of  a seal,  preserved  on  one  of  those  common  little 
pyramids  of  terra-cotta.  The  object  is  in  the  Berlin  Museum,2  and  comes  from  a 
private  collection  at  Athens.  The  quality  of  the  clay  seems  to  show  that  it  is  also  of 
Attic  workmanship,  and  it  might  perhaps  belong  to  the  fourth  or  third  century  B.C. 

We  see  the  upper  part  of  an  unclothed  female  form,  bending  far  back,  and  looking 
up  towards  heaven.  The  left  hand  is  raised  before  her  face,  the  right  grasps  her  long  dishevelled  hail", 
which  streams  down  behind.  The  figure  expresses  an  urgent  and  pathetic  entreaty  to  heaven.  The  body 
is  cut  off  in  its  lower  part,  and  rests — this  is  especially  noteworthy — on  a kind  of  car,  with  a wheel  of  that 
old-fashioned  sort  which,  in  place  of  radiating  spokes,  has  bars  in  the  form  of  a double  cross.  Wheels 
of  this  kind3  occur  only  on  vehicles  such  as  carts,  upon  which  the  occupants  sat,  and  to  which  were 
yoked  mules  or  oxen,4  such  as  the  carts  used  in  the  fields  ; thus  the  winged  chariot  on  which,  in 
an  old  Attic  vase-painting,  Dionysos  is  driving,  as  does  Triptolemos,  to  extend  the  blessings  of 
agriculture,  has  this  same  shape.5 6  The  cart  of  our  seal  is,  like  that  of  Triptolemos,  wholly  without 
a pole,  but  it  has  round  it  a peculiar  fringed  rim  ; there  is  also  something  projecting  at  the  top 

before  and  behind  the  woman’s  body.  It  looks  exactly  as  though 
the  cart  were  covered  with  cut  grass,  corn,  or  the  like. 

This  strange  representation  must  clearly  be  connected  with  certain 
religious  usages,  of  which  we  meet  with  occasional  notices.  At 
Krannon,  for  instance,  the  Thessalian  town  which  lay  in  the  fruitful 
Pelasgiotis,  there  was  a sacred  chariot  of  brass  : if  a drought  occurred 
in  the  land,  this  was  moved  rapidly  backwards  and  forwards,  while 
prayers  were  offered  over  it  for  rain.  There  were  moreover  here 
two  sacred  ravens,  and,  as  it  was  said,  no  other  raven  in  the  territory 
of  the  town.  Now  chariot  and  ravens  were  so  highly  reverenced  that  they  were  used  as  the  coat  of  arms 
and  seal  of  the  town.0  Thus  they  appear  for  instance  on  a coin  which  has  come  down  to  our  time 
(Fig.  186). 7 The  vehicle  is  again  a mere  cart,  as  on  the  Athenian  seal  ; but  it  appears  to  have  had  four 
wheels,  at  least  there  are  two  (presumably  on  the  same  side)  represented.  On  these  sit  the  two  ravens 
facing  each  other.  In  the  middle,  on  the  cart,  stands  a large  amphora.  This  last  clearly  indicates  what 
it  was  desired  to  secure — heaven’s  moisture,  rain.  We  may  conjecture  that  when  in  time  of  drought  this 
rain-charm  was  used,  the  vase  was  filled  with  water,  so  that  it  spirted  out  when  the  chariot  was  shaken  to 
and  fro.  Dipping  in  water  and  sprinkling  with  water  are  among  the  most  favourite  forms  of  rain- 
incantation  in  the  circle  of  Indo-Germanic  religions.8  The  two  ravens,  again,  become  intelligible,  if  we 
recall  the  Greek  legend,  occurring  in  diverse  variants,  to  the  effect  that  the  raven  in  summer,  at  the  time 


Fig. 


186. — Two  bronze  coins  ot 
Krannon. 


1 So  Heydemann,  loc.  cit.,  and  Dittenberger  in  the  C.  I.  A.  Kuhnert  is  mistaken  in  his  conjecture  (Roscher’s 
Lex.  i.  1581)  that  it  was  a relief  showing  Zeus  and  Gaia. 

2 Antiquarium,  T. C.  Inv.  6787.  It  is  pierced  at  the  top.  With  regard  to  these  pyramids  of  terra-cotta, 
cf.  Olympia, -vo\.  iv.  Die  Bronzen , p.  206,  on  No.  1331,  and  the  works  there  cited;  moreover,  Annali,  1872, 
PI.  M,  and  the  interesting  notice,  Ann.  1884,  p.  237  scq. 

3 Cf.  with  regard  to  this  the  proofs  given  by  me  in  Olympia , vol.  iv.  Die  Bronzen , text,  p.  69,  on  No.  510. 

4 An  ox-cart  of  this  kind  is  seen,  e.g.,  in  the  old  Makedonian  coin,  Berlin  Catalog , ii.  PI.  7,  67.  Mules  are 

more  frequently  drawing  them.  5 Gerhard,  Auserl.  Vasenin  41. 

6 So  Antigonos  of  Karystos,  Histor.  Mirab.  xv.  (ed.  Keller)  : ’Ev  S'e  Kpavvuvi  rps  ©erraAias  Svo  epaalv  povov 
eivai.KopaKa.s-  Seb  Kal  eve  to>v  npo^eveiiv  tuv  avaypaepopevwv  to  vapdeernpov  tt)s  voAeas . . . vvoypdfpovrae  Svo  Kopaices 
eep'  apa^eov  xaA/coO,  81a  r b prjSe  wore  vAeeovs  tovtoiv  3><p6ae.  y Se  a/xa^a  vpoexvapaKeeTae  81a  ToeavT-pv  aWeav" 
£eiw  yap  lexas  av  ical  tovto  epaveep-  emeu  aiiToes  avaeceepevp  gaAicrj,  tjv  orav  aiiyphs  f?  aelovres  vS up  aWovvTae  rbv 
Oeov,  vae  <pam  yeveadae.  There  follows  an  excerpt  from  Theopompos  to  the  effect  that  the  two  ravens,  when  they 
have  reared  up  young  to  take  their  place,  always  fly  away  again. 

7 Cf.  Brit.  Mus.  Catal.  Thessaly,  PI.  II.  14,  15  ; Eckhel,  Doctr.  ii.  36  ; Head,  Hist.  Num.  p.  249.  Two 

types  are  to  be  distinguished,  both  of  which  we  give  in  Fig.  186.  One,  which  is  the  older,  shows  on  the  obverse 
a head,  on  the  reverse  a chariot  with  heavy  spokeless  wheels,  on  which  sit  the  ravens.  The  other  has  on  the 

obverse  a horseman,  on  the  reverse  the  chariot  with  wheels  well  executed,  but  for  the  most  part  without  the 

ravens.  A specimen  at  Athens  and  one  at  Klagenfurt  (I  have  seen  impressions,  through  the  kindness  of  Imhoof- 
Blumer)  have  in  each  case  one  raven  only  on  the  right-hand  wheel.  Fig.  186  is  taken  from  two  specimens  at 
Berlin,  but  the  inscription  on  the  older  coin  has  been  completed  with  the  help  of  the  impression  of  a better- 
preserved  specimen  belonging  to  the  collection  of  Imhoof-Blumer.  The  inscription  is  Kpawowlow  (cf.  Collitz, 
Dialektinschr.  i.  364).  8 Cf.  Mannhardt,  Baumkultus,  passim. 


470 


THE  TEMPLES  OF  ATHENA  ON  THE  AKROPOLIS 


of  the  greatest  heat,  when  the  corn  or  the  figs  are  ripening,  is  tormented  by  an  unquenchable  thirst, 
and  that  his  croaking  is  evidence  of  this.  It  is  supposed  to  be  a punishment  inflicted  by  Apollo  because 
the  raven  when  sent  out  by  him  to  fetch  water  neglected  this  commission.1  We  may  conjecture  that 
this  myth  arose  in  the  first  place  out  of  the  ritual,  which  at  the  time  of  the  greatest  heat  attributed 
an  important  significance  to  the  raven.  Of  what  particular  kind  this  was  is  indicated  in  the  feature 
of  the  story  which  says  that  the  bird  was  sent  to  fetch  water.  Ravens  were  considered  in  antiquity 
as  heralds  of  impending  rain.2  In  German  mythology  also  and  the  two  ravens  of  Odin,  it  is  still 
clearly  perceptible  that  they  are  the  dark  storm-birds  of  the  rain-clouds.3  They  are  to  bring  down 
the  water  of  heaven  ; that  is  why  they  sit  on  the  wheels  of  the  chariot  of  Krannon,  which  produces 
rain  at  times  of  drought. 

Many  traces  from  allied  spheres  of  civilization  point  to  a same  high  ritual  importance  attaching 
to  a sacred  chariot,  as  at  Krannon.  An  instance  is  the  sacred  chariot  set  up  in  Phrygia  in  the 
principal  shrine  at  Gordion.4  And  from  Phrygia,  with  the  worship  of  the  mother  of  the  gods — 
the  great  earth  goddess— was  also  transplanted  to  Rome  the  usage  of  driving  about  her  idol 
on  her  chariot  at  her  festival,  and  then  bathing  it.  The  bathing  of  the  idol  was  probably  here  and 
elsewhere  originally  intended  merely  as  a kind  of  rain-charm,  like  all  dipping  into  water.  In  the 
expedition  of  Xerxes  there  were  in  the  centre  ten  sacred  steeds,  and  behind  them  the  sacred  chariot 
of  the  supreme  god,  drawn  by  eight  steeds,  whose  driver  went  on  foot  beside  the  chariot ; next 
followed  the  king.5  Among  the  Germans,  according  to  Tacitus,  quite  the  same  usage  seems  to  have 
obtained  ; 6 a sacred  car  with  horses  was  led  by  priests  and  princes.  Again,  in  the  North  of  Germany, 
as  Tacitus  tells  us,  at  the  beginning  of  spring,  Nerthus,  whom  he  designates  as  terra  mater,  was  driven 
on  a sacred  car  drawn  by  cows  through  the  country,  and  finally  car,  robe,  and  numen  were  bathed  in  a 
lake.7  Traces  of  similar  customs  in  German  ritual  have  been  repeatedly  pointed  out.8  We  should 
mention  too  that  in  several  European  countries  it  is  still  customary  to  bring  in  what  Mannhardt 
calls  the  ‘ Daemon  of  Vegetation  ’ on  a car.  This  deity  is  sometimes  represented  in  vegetable 
form,  as  may-pole,  harvest  tree,  or  the  like,  sometimes  in  human  shape,  being  then  a figure 
thickly  enveloped  in  foliage.9  From  the  regions  of  the  Balkan  and  from  modern  Greece  we  hear 
of  the  following  custom.10  When  there  is  a prolonged  drought,  in  the  height  of  summer,  a young 
girl,  completely  covered  up  with  greenery  and  flowers,  is  driven  about  and  sprinkled  with  water ; this 
is  intended  to  elicit  rain,11  and  at  the  same  time  a song  is  sung  entreating  for  rain.  The  girl  covered 
with  foliage  represents  the  spirit  of  growth  in  earth,  which  desires  to  be  sprinkled  with  water. 

The  last-mentioned  usages  explain  to  us  the  grass-like  covering  of  the  car  on  which  the  goddess 
entreating  for  rain  appears  upon  our  Athenian  seal. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  car?  Originally  it  is  no  doubt  a pure  symbol.  In  the  ritual 
usage  at  Krannon,  in  which  the  car  is  pushed,  rolled,  or  shaken  to  and  fro,  the  water  meantime,  as 
we  may  suppose,  spirting  out  of  the  amphora,  the  significance  is  still  recognizable — namely,  the 
car  betokens  the  cloud,  the  roaring  and  rattling  cloud  of  thunderstorm  and  rain.  In  the  German 
mythology  this  symbolism  is  still  particularly  plain.  Thor  and  Odin  ride  both  of  them  on 

roaring  cloud-chariots  ; but  especially  in  the  beginning  of  spring  the  great  cloud  goddess  makes 

1 The  simplest  and  probably  oldest  conception  is  given  by  Aelian,  De  Nat.  Anirn.  i.  47  : QpvyeTcu  Si  a to  0 
depovs  & Kopa£  t< £ Siipei  Ko\a(6/j.evos,  Ka'i  0oa  ttjv  npuapiav  /xapTvpofxevos.  Apollo  sends  him  to  fetch  water  ; he 
comes  to  a green  cornfield,  and  in  order  to  be  able  to  eat  the  grain  waits  till  it  has  become  quite  dry  with  the 
heat ; this  makes  him  forget  his  commission,  and  accordingly  as  a punishment  he  has  to  be  always  thirsty  in  the 
driest  time  of  the  year.  A somewhat  different  and  later  form  occurs,  Eratosthenes,  Kataster.  41  (Robert,  p.  188), 
following  Aristotle  : The  raven  is  to  fetch  water  for  a sacrificial  libation  ; he  comes  to  a fig-tree,  and  waits  till  the 
figs  are  ripe,  then  brings  a water-snake  and  the  Krater  to  Apollo,  and  excuses  himself  by  saying  that  the  snake 
always  drank  up  the  water  ; as  a punishment  he  was  obliged  to  thirst,  irepl  rrjr  a.K/j.^n  t rjs  cnrwpas  ( Schol Arat.)  ; 
Raven,  Krater,  and  Hydra  occur  among  the  constellations.  According  to  the  poem  of  Dionysios,  tt epl  bpvtBwr 
(excerpt  Cramer,  Anecdota  Gr.,  Paris,  i.  p.  25),  lust  was  the  cause  of  his  not  executing  the  commission.  In  the 
treatise  of  O.  Keller,  mentioned  in  the  following  note,  no  account  is  taken  of  these  interesting  myths. 

2 Cf.  O.  Keller,  Rabe  und  Krdhe  im  Alterthum  (1.  Jahresber.  d.  wiss.  Vereinsf.  Volkskunde  und  Linguistik 
in  Prag,  1893),  p.  8. 

3 J.  Grimm,  Deutsche  Mythol.  4th  ed.  p.  559  ; Elard  Hugo  Meyer,  German.  Mythol.  p.  112. 

4 Arrian,  Anab.  2,  3,  where  the  temple  is  designated  as  that  of  Zeus  Basileus. 

5 Herod,  vii.  40. 

0 Tacit.  Germ.  10.  Cf.  Mannhardt,  Baumkultus , 580. 

7 Tacit.  Germ.  40.  Cf.  especially  Mannhardt,  Baumkultus , 567  sqq.  ; Miillenhoff,  Deutsche  Alterth.-Kunde, 
2,  28  ; E.  H.  Meyer,  German.  Mythol.  p.  287  seq. 

8 Cf.  Mannhardt,  toe.  cit.  So  the  Goths  in  the  fourth  century  drove  about  an  idol  on  a baggage-wagon 
(apfiapa^a),  toe.  cit.  578- 

9 Mannhardt,  Baumkultus,  p.  154^. 

10  Ibid.  p.  328. 

11  Similarly  it  is  customary  to  sprinkle  the  ‘ harvest  tree  ’ with  water,  to  guard  against  drought  in  the 
following  year  (ibid.  p.  214). 


EARTH  GODDESS 


471 


her  progress  in  a chariot,  or  else  on  a ship,  for  the  latter  is  merely  another,  not  less  favourite, 
symbol  of  the  cloud.1 

The  ship  of  the  Panathenaic  festal  procession  also  had  in  the  beginning  no  other  significance 
than  this.  It  pertained  to  the  old  agrarian  Athena  who  made  the  tilled  land  fertile,  who  nourished 
the  olives,  in  the  product  of  which  consisted  the  prizes  given  at  the  games  held  in  honour  of  her 
festival.  The  progress  of  her  ship  is  wholly  similar  to  that  of  the  German  goddess  of  clouds  and 
of  the  earth.  Athena  is  just  as  closely  connected  with  ship,  car,  and  plough,2  the  old  symbols  of  the 
clouds,  as  is  that  German  goddess.  Pallas  was  also  bathed  at  Athens,  it  is  only  uncertain  at  what 
festival.3  Like  Athena,  Dionysos  also — not  the  Thrakian  Dionysos,  but  the  old  Greek  ‘god  of 
vegetation  ’4 — was  driven  about  in  Attika  upon  a ship  that  moved  on  wheels.5  It  is  an  old  mistake 
to  try  to  explain  these  progresses  on  a ship  by  a supposed  immigration  from  abroad. 

Of  the  two  monuments — the  type  of  the  coin  from  Thessaly,  and  the  impression  of  the  seal  from 
Athens — the  former  undoubtedly  represents  an  earlier  stage  of  ritual  than  the  other.  For  the  former 
shows  as  yet  no  daemon  in  human  form  upon  the  chariot,  but  only  the  symbolical  amphora  and  the 
two  ravens.  The  Phrygian,  Persian,  and  German  sacred  chariots  in  early  times  were  likewise  without 
human  image. 

The  chariot  of  Krannon,  again,  so  strongly  recalls  certain  still  extant  chariots  of  the  Bronze  age 
and  the  earliest  part  of  the  Iron  age,  found  in  Mid  and  North  Europe,  that  we  must  necessarily  speak 
of  them  here.  There  are  the  ‘cauldron  chariots,’  as  they  are  called,6  small  four-wheeled  contrivances 
of  the  nature  of  chariots,  on  each  of  which  rests  a cauldron,  exactly  as  at  Krannon.  Sometimes 
heads  of  birds  are  affixed.  The  celebrated  chariot  of  Judenburg  is  most  richly  fitted  up  ; 7 it  has  a set 
of  figures  denoting  a sacrifice  of  a stag  and  a festal  procession  ; in  the  centre  stands  a woman 
supporting  a cauldron.  The  religious  significance  of  this  utensil  has  for  a long  time  been  con- 
jectured ; but  interpreters  have  gone  far  astray  in  connecting  it  with  the  great  cauldron  of  Solomon’s 
temple,  moving  upon  wheels,  and  which  was  intended  for  the  purification  of  the  sacrificial  gifts.8  The 
use  of  wheels  under  utensils  of  all  kinds,  as  here  below  the  cauldrons  of  Hiram,  has  nothing  at  all  to 
do  with  those  northern  ‘ cauldron  chariots  ’ : we  find  it  also  in  the  Homeric  epos,  and  old  Etruscan 
and  Greek  discoveries  have  brought  it  to  our  knowledge.9  In  my  opinion — for  which  I will  give 
the  reasons  more  in  detail  elsewhere — it  is  one  of  the  most  serious  errors  of  prehistoric  archaeology,10 
that  it  has  been  led  by  the  superficial  resemblance  to  suppose  a ‘Semitic  Oriental’  influence  on  the 
early  European  artistic  industry  just  in  the  point  where  it  least  of  all,  according  to  my  conviction, 
existed.  Those  ‘cauldron  chariots’  are  no  more  Semitic  than  the  chariot  of  Krannon.  On  the 
contrary,  they  probably  had  the  same  significance  : they  were  properly,  I think,  religious  symbols 
of  the  fruit-bringing  rain-cloud ; and  we  may  conjecture  that  they,  like  the  other,  were  shaken  in 
times  of  drought. 

The  utensils  in  the  form  of  birds  mounted  on  four  wheels11  which  are  found  in  Italy,  and  also  in 
Bosnia  and  Hungary,  likewise  remind  us  of  the  chariot  of  Krannon  with  its  ravens,  and  probably  had 
a similar  religious  significance. 

The  representation  on  the  Athenian  seal  is  far  in  advance  of  this  stage  of  primitive  symbolical 
suggestion.  It  is  true  that  the  car  covered  with  grass  and  foliage  is  still  quite  a popular  symbol, 
which  was  no  doubt  used  in  country  processions  and  supplications  at  times  of  drought  in  Attika, 
as  we  may  now  conclude.  But  here  there  rises  above  the  car  the  image  of  the  earth  goddess 
herself,  in  the  type  established  by  art,  with  only  the  upper  part  of  her  form  projecting  ; in  a lifelike 
and  strikingly  beautiful  fashion  she  makes  entreaty  to  heaven,  that  it  should  please  it  to  send  rain 
upon  the  thirsty  ground.  In  a like  pathetic  attitude  must  we  conceive  that  image  to  have  been 
represented  which  once  rose  to  the  north  of  the  Parthenon  directly  from  the  rock. 

1 Cf.  Elard  Hugo  Meyer,  German.  Mythol.  pp.  90,  232,  239,  281  sqq.,  290  seq. 

2 Athena  is  the  inventress  of  the  ship,  the  plough,  and  the  chariot,  or — in  the  last  two  cases  at  least  of 
harnessing  animals  to  them.  Cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i.  680  seq. 

3 Cf.  Preller-Robert,  Griech.  Mythol.  i.  209,  n.  3.  The  procession  of  the  Epheboi  with  the  idol  to 
I’haleron  is  generally  ascribed  to  the  Plynteria  or  the  Oschophoria  ; either  ascription  is  quite  uncertain. 

4 Cf.  Back  in  FleckeiseiH s Jahrb.  1887,  444  sqq. 

5 Inghirami,  Vast  Fittili , i.  33,  an  Attic  black-figured  vase. 

6 What  is  known  on  this  subject  is  collected  and  reviewed  by  Undset  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Ethnol.  1890,  pp.  56 — 61. 

7 A good  reproduction  in  Much,  Vorgeschichtl.  Atlas , PI.  41.  8 Undset,  loc.  cit. 

9  Cf.  the  instances  collected  by  Undset,  p.  71  sqq. 

10  Undset’s  conclusions,  which  are  connected  with  his  general  views — erroneous,  as  I am  convinced — with 
regard  to  Oriental  influences  on  the  style  of  early  European,  and  specially  of  early  Italian,  art,  are  indorsed  by 

Hornes,  Urgeschichte , p.  341. 

11  Cf.  Undset,  loc.  cit.  49  sqq.  The  birds  sometimes  have  ox-heads,  which  certainly  has  a daemoniac 
significance. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


[Numbers  following  after  a comma  refer  to  the  notes.) 


I.  HISTORICAL 


AEGINETAN  ART  7.  19.  416,  8 
ARCHAISTIC  42.  441. 

FINE  PERIOD  UP  TO  ALEXANDER. 
a SCULPTORS. 

HAGELAIDAS  AND  TIIE  OLD  ARGIVE 
SCHOOL.  Male  type  25.  49  sqq.  182.  191  sjq. 
212  sqq.  226.  285.  287  sqq.  312.  354.  359. 

Female  type  23.  Further  development  after 
Hagelaidas  196.  212.  226.  Introduction  of  the 
walking  motive  213  seq.  226.  School  tradition  290 
227.  Argeiadas  196.  Dionysios  and  Glaukos  215. 
Offering  of  Smikythos  215  seq.  Unknown  master 
connected  with  the  Argive  school  290  seq.  Apollo 
52.  Dionysos  42.  Zeus  212  sqq.  Youth  353,  2.  357. 
IIEGIAS  54.  1 7 1 seq.  194.  197. 

KRITIOS  AND  NESIOTES.  Style  46.  53.  171 
seq.  194.  197.  223,  1. 

Works  in  style  of  7.  19.  49.  52. 

KALAMIS.  Style  and  works  24.  42.  81  seq.  171. 

175,  2.  182.  191.  196,  2.  197.  298.  437. 
SCHOOL  OF  KALAMIS  (Praxias  and  others)  55. 
81.  197.  298. 

PYTHAGORAS.  Style  of  works  24.  108.  172. 
Female  types  24.  Influence  on  Sicilian  coin- 
types 10S.  172.  Perseus  (?)  197,  3.  199,  1. 
TELEPHANES  57. 

MYRON.  Period  182  seq.  Pupil  of  Hagelaidas  (?) 
196  sqq.  General  character  201  seq.  Ancient 
criticisms  173  227.  182  seq.  Treatment  of  hair  170. 
173-  1 8 1 . 199.  Style  of  drapery  212.  188,5.  Forma- 
tion of  eyes  170  seq.  Formation  of  the  forehead 
169.  173.  17S.  1S0.  182.  199.  210.  468.  Expression 
of  countenance  173  seq.  Myron  and  Hagelaidas 
175.  182.  190 seq.  196.  210.  212  sqq.;  and  Kritios 
and  Nesiotes  194  ; and  Kalamis  190  seq.  ; and 
Pythagoras  172.  175  ; and  the  Olympian  sculptures 
188  ; and  Pheidias  202. 


Works.  Diskobolos  168.  173.  180.  1 91  227.  193. 
199.  204.  287.  Marsyas  126.  180  sqq.  193.  196.  259. 
Perseus  197277.  Apollo  190  sqq.  Zeus  186  sqq. 
Herakles  178277.  202.  Erechtheus  204,  205. 
Goddess  202.  Medusa  201  seq.  Heroes  165.  169. 

1 S 1 . 193  Hermes  (?)  182.  Poseidon  (?)  184 
Athletes  175  (Youthful  vork).  172277.  204. 
Portraits  175227.  191.  Works  falsely  attributed  to 
46,  3.  287. 

LYKIOS,  son  of  Myron  182.  259.  296. 

PHEIDIAS.  Period  25  seq.  4S.  Pupil  of  Hegias 
53.  of  Hagelaidas  53.  Painter  45.  48.  Kimonian 
period  33  sqq.  Law-suit  and  death  36  sqq. 
Apocryphal  portrait  of  4S.  Descendants  39. 
Pupils  and  colleagues  32.  Pose  of  statues  25.  27. 
30.  78.  244.  249.  Form  of  ear  18.  Style  of  relief 
43  sqq.  ; Ph.  and  Hagelaidas50  277.  ; and  school  of 
Kalamis  81  ; and  Olympian  sculptures  23  ; and 
Alkamenes  20.  84.  90227.  95  ; and  Kresilas  136277.; 
and  Polykleitos  137.  244.  291  ; and  Perikles  34.  36. 
Works.  Athena  Lemnia  4 sqq.  ; related  to  26.  49. 
66.  77.  100.  106  seq.  138.  291.  Athena  Parthenos 
10  ; (head)  107  ; (date)  33  sqq.  ; relation  to  the 
Lemnia  43  sqq.  47.  99.  10S  seq.  ; (shield)  45. 

99;  (basis)  21.  26  seq.  29.  31  seq.  66.  90.  94. 
426.  Athena  in  Rome  78.  Athena  at  Pellene  36. 
at  Plataia  36.  Promachos  9227.  31  sqq.  46.  100 
sqq.  Delphic  group  34  seq.  Olympian  Zeus  36 
sqq.  43  seq.  (Throne  reliefs)  Parthenos  38.  45  sqq. 
Pantarkes  39.  Anadumenos  39.  244  sqq.  298. 

Aphrodite  Ourania  7 1 . 249.  399.  Amazon  1 36  sqq. 
Colossus  of  Monte  Cavallo  95  227.  421.  Cliduchus 
32,  I- 

Works  in  style  of  Pheidias.  Early  period. 
Apollo  49.  197.  Bearded  head  55.  Female 

heads  58  seq.  138.  Middle  and  later  period 
26  seq.  Athena  60.  76.  90.  Aphrodite  66. 

140.  Eros  69.  140.  Mousaios  (?)  64.  Hero  (?) 
90.  Female  head  66.  Anakreon  60.  244. 


476 


INDEX 


Works  falsely  attributed  to  Pheidias  32  sqq. 

57-  1 44- 

Influence  and  School  of  Pheidias.  Aphro- 
dite 71.  399.  400.  Apollo  410  sqq.  Ares  92  seq. 
Asklepios  55.  227.  Athena  78.  144.  Herakles 
298.  Leda  395.  Female  types  with  coif  66,  2. 
71,  1.  395.  Goddess  in  animated  movement  104. 
107.  Zeus  or  Poseidon  104.  Zeus  Meilichios  (?)  212, 
1.  Coin-types  104  seq. 

ALKAMENES.  Period  90;  and  Pheidias  84.  90  seq. 
95.  Head  types  84.  Aphrodite  19  seq.  82.  275, 
10.  Ares  89  sqq.  95.  155.  298,  3.  Athena  76  seq. 
84.  141  ; Without  a helmet  (?)  85.  Athlete  90. 
137  seq.  296.  Dionysos  90.  Hekate  90,  3.  260  seq. 
Hephaistos  88,  89.  Hera  82.  84.  90,  3.  Herakles 
298,  3.  Orpheus  relief  88. 

AGORAKRITOS.  Nemesis  8.  85.  400.  Hades 
and  Athena  80,  1.  Apollo  88.  305,  6.  Athena  88. 
Aphrodite  400. 

PRAXITELES  THE  ELDER  32  sqq.  99  sqq. 
102  sqq.  296.  412. 

KALLIMACHOS  437  seq.  Hera  437,  5.  Lak. 

438  seq.  Other  works  ibid.  450  seq. 

TEMPLE  SCULPTURES,  Stylistic.  ‘ Theseion  ’ 
46.99.  182,  5.  448.  Sunium46.  Parthenon:  metopes 
29  seq.  43,  6.  45  seq.  62.  97.  99.  140.  182.  Frieze 
and  pediments  19  seq.  30.  43,  7.  44.  46  sqq.  97. 
106.  136.  140.  244.  254.  399.  449.  Nike  temple 
21.  245,  2.  439.  445.  449.  Erechtheion  11.  450. 
Phigalia  437,  4. 

KRESILAS.  Period  and  Life  1 1 5 sqq.  165.  Develop- 
ment 165.  Ivr.  and  Myron  165.  168.  170  seq.  180. 
188.  196  seq.  201  seq.  ; and  Polykleitos  134  sqq.  144. 
154.  243.  254  seq.  265  seq.  268.  298  ; and  Pheidias 
136  seq.  144.  Imitated  in  later  times  165. 
Works:  Perikles  9.  62,  8.  117  seq.  145.  178.  Dii- 
trephes  122  sqq.  Amazon  128  sqq.  145.  154  seq.  254 
seq.  Athena  141^.  188.  Diomede  146  sqq.  154 
seq.  165  seq.  201.  265.  298.  Medusa  156  sqq.  201. 
Athlete  (Doryphoros)  161  sqq.  The  Runner  126 
sqq.  178.  Works  falsely  attributed  to  62,  8. 
MASTER  RELATED  TO  KRESILAS.  247. 
248,  4. 

STRONGYLION  140. 

PAIONIOS  41,  6. 

DEMETRIOS  122,  2.  321,  1. 

MYS  34. 

POLYKLEITOS.  Period  130.  140.  196.  223. 

Birthplace  225  sqq.  Family  226.  Pupil  of  PI  age  - 
laidas  ? 196.  214  seq.  223.  226.  Works  which  can  be 
dated  223  seq.  Bases  in  Olympia  224.  249  sqq. 
Quinctilian  verdict  237.  243.  Beardless  figures 
236.  292.  Delicate  gradations  from  boyhood  to 
adolescence  252.  257.  264  sqq.  281  sqq.  292. 
Standing  motive  214.  227.  242.  248  seq.  254. 
260.  266.  274.  Characteristic  defect  134.  266 

seq.  243  seq.  254.  261.  265.  Attic  influence 

upon  P.  243  seq.  261.  266  seq.  274.  277.  291  seq. 
298.  P.  and  Pheidias  138.  245.  292  ; and 

Kresilas  134.  144.  154.  243.  254.  265.  268.  298; 
and  Myron  236  ; and  Patrokles  226  ; and  the  Attic 
masters  of  the  fourth  century  298  sqq.  312.316  seq. 


Works:  Doryphoros  138.  140.1*7.  151,  5.  163.  227 
seq.  242  ; adaptations  from  229  sqq.  ; Canon  196. 
229.  Amazon  128.  134.  138.  140.  247  seq.  Diadu- 
menos  238  seq.  242  sqq.  247.  268.  Herakles  234  sqq. 
266.  Hera  223.  242.  Kyniskos  214.  224.  249  seq. 
Pythokles  224.  262  sqq.  Xenokles  224.  279.  Aristion 
225.  Destringens  se  262.  Nudtis  talo  incessens  249, 2. 
Pueri  astragal.  292,  1.  Youth,  hand  on  back  238. 
Boy  crowning  himself  249  sqq.  Adaptations  255  seq. 
Boy  crowned  256.  Boy  athlete  265  sqq.  Boxer 
246.  Oil-pourer  257  seq.  Athlete  with  aryballos 
264.  Standing  still  279  sqq. 

Falsely  attributed  to  92,  1.  144.  214.  223,  1. 
290,  4. 

POLYKLEITOS,  SCHOOL  OF  225  seq.  229. 

249.  256.  286.  289.  291  seq. 

Works:  Adonis  (?  ‘ Narkissos ’)  272,  5.  357.  Ares 

271.  Aristaios  278.  Asklepios  277,  6.  Dionysos 

272.  350  rey.  Boxer  246.  Hermes  288  sqq.  Youth 
standing  still  279  seq.  Idolino  283  sqq.  290.  350. 
Other  works  : 265.  268  seq.  Pan  229.  269. — Dis- 
tantly related  290  sqq. — Falsely  attributed  to  223. 
243  (Heraion  at  Argos). 

PHRADMON  128  seq.  140. 

PATROKLES  226.  286.  289.  290.  292. 
POLYKLEITOS  THE  YOUNGER  224  sqq.  288. 
302. 

NAUKYDES  225.  249.  288,  1.  313.  Immolans 
arictem  231.  Hermes  2S8. 

DAIDALOS  225.  249. 

KLEON  225.  249.  278. 

KEPIIISODOTOS  THE  ELDER  146.  296.1*7. 
SKOPAS.  Origin  and  school  302.  Earlier  period 
under  Polykleitan  influence  296.  Stylistic  develop- 
ment in  the  bodily  forms  305  seq.  396.  Marble 
technique  310.  391.  Works  in  bronze  394.  P'emale 
bodies  392  seq.  Type  of  face  391.  Ear  391  seq. 
395.  Sk.  and  Polykleitos  235.  302  seq  ; and  Praxi- 
teles 391  seq.  392.  395  seq.  ; and  Lysippos  301. 
363.  394  seq. 

Works:  Aphrodite  391  seq.  394.  396.  A.  Pandemos 
at  Elis  394.  Apollo  Smintheus  303,  2.  336.  388. 
Kitharoidos  305.  397.  Ares  304.  394.  Asklepios 
300.  Athena  305.  439.  Column  at  Ephesos  307. 
Goddess,  head  in  Athens  309.  334.  344.  391.  Others 
392.  Herakles  66,  5.  235.  296  seq.  301,  1.  307.  341, 
1.  396.  Hypnos  303.  395  seq.  Youth,  foot  raised 
on  eminence  302  seq.  Kanephoros  337,  1.  ‘ Leda’ 
394  seq.  Maenad  397.  Meleager  184.  304  seq. 
Pan  303.  Adaptations  392,  5.  397  seq. 

Falsely  attributed  to  337. 

PRAXITELES.  Period  295.  309.  Sojourn  in  Asia 
Minor  322.  Phryne  318.  Earlier  period  under  Pelo- 
ponnesian influence  318  seq.  324.  Skull  312.  Hair 
309  seq.  334.  344-  39i-  Eyes  334-  345-  Ear  345- 
Mouth  345.  Female  type  of  face  345.  391.  Breast 
392.  Marble  technique  309  seq.  334.  344.  Bronze 
casting  391.  Pr.  and  Polykleitos  312.  317  ; and 
Skopas  344.  391  sqq. 

Works:  Aphrodite,  earlier  period  387.  391.  Knidian 
319  sqq.  324.  387.  391  seq.  Koan  322.  385,  1.  Origi- 
nal head  of  A.  320.  334.  343  sqq.  Apollo,  earlier 


INDEX 


477 


period  314  seq.  337  ; later  337.  Sauroktonos  336. 
388.  Artemis,  Brauronia  102,  3.  323.  388.  426,  3. 
431,  4;  another  of  an  earlier  period  324  seq. ; 
another  326  sqq. ; at  Antikyra  328.  Athena  326. 
Bonus  Eventus,  Bona  Forluna  349  seq.  Dionysos 
3U,  2.  314  seq.  323,  5.  337.  In  Elis  308,  8.  Infant 
Dionysos  296.  Eros  313  sqq.  Thespian  271,  1.  317. 
355  ; of  Parion  336  ; of  Kallistratos  314,  1.  340. 
Eubouleus  103.  330.  331  sqq.  340.  39 1 sqq.  Group 
in  Mantineia  295,  1.  309.  313,  in  Megara  313,  1. 
Herakles  340  sqq.  Hermes  in  Olympia  190.  302. 
3° 7 sqq.  330.  334.  337  sqq.  342.  344.  345.  Another 
Hermes  338.  Kanephoroi  337,  1.  Muses  on  the 
Mantineia  basis  309.  319.  325.  Leto  326.  Opora 
337,1.  Phryne  320.  Pseliumene  387.  Satyr  pour- 
ing wine  310  sqq.  319;  leaning  329  sqq.  Trip- 
tolemos  334.  Tyche  325.  Type  of  Zeus  190. 
‘Aberdeen  head’  346  seq.  Falsely  attributed  to 
337)  5-  354-  356,  7- 

SONS  OF  PRAXITELES  309.  Hermes  338.  362. 
Aphrodite  345. 

EUPIIRANOR.  Period,  school  348.  General 
character  363.  Influence  in  Athens  356.  Develop- 
ments, offshoots  of  his  tendency  363  seq.  E.  and 
Praxiteles  355  seq.  363  seq.  Skopas  363  seq. 
Lysippos  363  seq. 

Works  : Aphrodite  359.  Apollo  352  seq.  Athena 
359  sll-  Bonus  Eventus  349  seq.  353.  Dionysos 
350  j'ty.  356  seq.  Herakles  357.  Leto  349.  Pan 
359.  Paris  357  seq. 

SOSTRATOS,  son  of  Euplnanor  349,  3.  363. 
SEILANION  71,  1.  153,  4. 

BRYAXIS  230,  2. 


LEOC  HARES.  Relation  to  older  prototypes 
410  sqq.  Alexander  408.  Apollo  Belvedere  328. 
408  sqq.  Artemis  328.  409.  Ganymede  408.  410. 
Zeus  190,  3. 

LYSIPPOS.  Date  302,  4.  of  Sikyon  225.  Character 
of  arts  363  seq.  Motive  300  seq.  348.  363  seq.  In- 
fluence of  Skopas  300  seq.  363.  L.  and  Polykleitos 
363  seq. ; and  Euphranor  363  seq.  ; and  Polykleitos 
the  Younger  224,  2. 

Works:  Apoxyomenos  300  seq.  304.  338.  341,  1.  351 
seq.  Athletes,  standing  still  364 ; in  movement 
364,  2.  Alexander  with  spear  364,  2.  Eros 
394  seq.  Herakles  301,  1.  341,  1.  Hermes  290.  300. 
338.  Kairos  396.  Warrior  (Alexander?)  301,  1. 
Pulydamas  302,  4.  Troilos  302,  4.  Falsely  attri- 
buted to  96.  304  seq. 

EUPHRANOR,  painting  of  Cavalry  Engagement  in 
Stoa  Basileios  348. 

POLYGNOTOS  36.  41.  43,  S.  44.  303. 

PANAINOS  40  seq.  48. 

PARRHASIOS  34.  348. 

EUPOMPOS  256.  330,  3. 

APELLES  and  Phryne  318. 

PROTOGENES  330. 

ZEUXIS  348. 

AFTER  ALEXANDER. 

PERGAMENE  ART.  Female  torso  392,  3.  Female 
head  398  seq.  Sappho  adapted  66,  2.  Athena 
after  fifth-century  original  7.  16,  5.  27. 

RENASCENCE  IN  SECOND  CENTURY  13.C. 
399.  Eubulides  141,  2.  144.  146. 


II.  MUSEUMS 


ATHENS 

Akropoi.is  : Athena  on  relief,  severe  style  14,  5.  20 
sqq.  25.  144,  7.  Statue  of  Athena,  severe  style  20 
sqq.  25.  Barbarian  statue,  archaic  35,  5.  Bronze 
female  head  52.  Bronze  statuette  of  boxer  246. 
Charites,  relief  20.  23,  1.  29.  Statue  of  boy  (style 
of  Kritios)  7.  19.  5 $ sqq.  ‘ Oil-pourer,  ’ relief  260, 
5.  Sandal  binder  364,  2.  Armchair  441.  ‘Altar 
to  the  Four  Gods’  439. 

Central  Museum.  Amazon  from  Luku  138,  2. 
Aphrodite,  torso  319,  1.  Apollo,  archaic  statues: 
so-called  ‘on  the  Omphalos’  81  seq.  175.  182.  190. 
298  ; so-called  of  Cassel,  torso  191,  1 ; head  191, 
1.  Asklepios,  beardless  277,  5.  Athena  of  Epi- 
dauros  412.  Athlete  of  Skopasian  style  162,  2. 
Doryphoros  motive,  Argive  relief  230.  Eleusinian 
relief  336,  1.  Eubouleus,  head  103  seq.  333  sqq. 
340.  344  sqq.  Monument  of  Eubulides  144. 
Hermes  from  Aegion  289,  from  Atalanti  291,  6. 
Kanephoroi  of  Praxitelean  style  337,  1.  Boy, 
severe  style,  from  Olympieion  196,  1.  Head, 


Skopasian,  from  south  slope  of  Akropolis  309.  334. 
344.  Grave-relief  from  Uissos  296.  302.  307.  In- 
fant Ploulos  296,  1,  2.  Poseidon  from  Melos  376. 
Altar  of  the  Twelve  Gods  431,  1. 

Polytechnicon  : Athlete,  bronze  statuette  265. 

Peiraieus  : Plead  of  athlete  296,  6. 

BALE 

Apollo  Steinhauser  409.  Head  ofDiskobolos  168,  3. 

BERLIN 

Sculptures  : Anakreon  60  sqq.  Pheidian  Aphrodite, 
statuette  249.  Statue  249.  400,  1.  Apollo,  Sa- 
bouroff  bronze  184.  352;  marble  statue  1S4.  299, 
3.  407,  5;  resting  337,  2;  torso,  ‘Adonis’  type 
354,  4.  Artemis,  statue  324,  1 ; head,  replica  of 
Gabii  type  323,  5.  Asklepios  or  Zeus  188,  3. 
Asklepios,  Pheidian  277,  2.  ‘ Aspasia  ’ head  8r, 

1.  Athena  from  Pergamon  7.  16,  5.  27  ; Skopa- 
sian 305,  1 ; head  ibid.-,  replica  of  Parthenos  100, 
2;  replica  of  Ath.  Giustiniani  359,  4.  361,  5; 


478 


INDEX 


Praxitelean  326,  2 ; replica  of  Ath.  Velletri  141,  2. 
athlete,  Lysippian  364,  1.  Bust  of  Caracalla  156. 

‘ Demeter  ’ with  veil  82.  Dionysos,  Polykleitan 
school  272,  1.  Diadumenos,  small  torso  239,  5. 
Diomede,  statuette  150,  3.  Diskobolos  of  Myron, 
head  148  seq.  Eros  of  Centocelle,  replica  316,  5. 
Herakles,  head  of  severe  style  82  ; head,  Poly- 
kleitan 234,  1.  Hermes  289,  1 ; do.  289,  3 ; do. 
by  Antiphanes  289.  Youth,  head  291,  8.  Replica 
of  hero  Riccardi  168.  Replica  of  ‘Dresden  boy,’ 
head  266,  3.  Boy  crowning  himself,  two  torsos 
251.  Female  head,  style  of  Alkamenes  85.  Fe- 
male head  from  Pergamon  398.  Meleager  184,  2. 

‘ Narkissos  ’ 272,  4 {a),  (n),  (/).  Female  portrait- 
statue,  Roman  328,  2.  Relief  of  Polystrata  224,  4. 
Relief  from  Sparta  209.  Reliefs  of  dancing  women 
438,  3.  Satyr  pouring  wine  312,  1.  ‘Sappho’ 
head  66,  2.  Head  of  strategos  120  seq.  Zeus, 
head  186.  190,  2. 

Antiquarium  : Bronzes:  Statuette  of  youth,  Argive 
226.  285,  3.  Hermes,  Lysippian  300.  338,  2. 
Athlete,  Skopasian  303,  8.  Portrait,  Hellenistic 
155.  Apollo  Greau  353.  Asklepios,  forgery  208, 

5.  Terra-cotta  : Aphrodite  from  Myrina  384. 
Gems:  Cameo,  head  of  Eros  69.  Paste,  dancing 
woman  319,  3.  Aphrodite,  Hellenistic  380.  Vases: 
from  Magna  Graecia  109. 

Collection  PouRTALfes  : Torso  of  Doryphoros  428. 

Collection  Kaufmann  : Head  of  Knidian  Aphro- 
dite 322,  3.  343,  5. 

Schloss  Glienecke  : Head  of  Athena  305,  1. 

BOLOGNA 

Museo  Civico  : Head  of  Lemnian  Athena  2.  7.  13 
sqq.  49  sqq. 

BONN 

Double  terminal  portrait -bust  309,  3.  Praxitelean 
Eros,  bronze  statuette  314,  2.  340. 

BRUNSWICK 

‘ Sappho  ’ head  66,  2 ( b ).  Mercury,  bronze  232,  3. 

BRESCIA 

Head  of  Athena,  Pheidian  90.  Head  of  youth,  se- 
vere style  175.  Victory,  bronze  statue  386. 

CASSEL 

Apollo  49.  190 sqq.  Artemis  324,  1.  Asklepios  or 
Zeus  188,  3.  Athena  Lemnia  5.  361,  4.  Head  of 
Diadumenos  240.  Boxer  245  seq.  Hephaistos  88 
seq.  Youth  354,  2.  ‘Narkissos’  272,  4 (q). 
Oil-pourer  260,  3. 

CARLSRUHE 

Aphrodite  from  Myrina,  terra-cotta  384,  2.  Youthful 
Asklepios,  bronze  300,  2.  Forged  bronze,  resem- 
bling Diadumenos  247.  Doryphoros  motive  231. 

‘ Narkissos’  272,  4 (g).  [ 


CATAJO 

Head  of  Diskobolos  169  ; of  Hermes  300,  4 ; statue 
of  youth  353,  2. 

COLOGNE 

Mask  of  Medusa  156. 

CONSTANTINOPLE 

Museum:  ‘Sappho’  head  66,  2 (q).  Zeus,  bronze 
342. 

Coi  l.  of  Sir  Edgar  Vincent  : Boy  crowning 
himself,  head  251. 

COPENHAGEN 

Coll.  Jacobsen  (Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg)  : head 
of  Amazon.  Addenda  2.  Anakreon  60  seq.  149,2. 
Aphrodite,  head  392.  Apollo,  ‘Adonis’  type  314, 
4.  Artemis,  torso  328.  Head  of  Athena  (Pro- 
machos?) 100.  Head  of  athlete,  bearded,  Lysippian 
364,  2.  Eros  of  Centocelle,  replica  316,  5.  Hera 
Borghese  84,  1.  Herakles,  bronze  statue  299,  3 ; 
looking  upward  341,  1.  Head  of  youth,  early 
Pheidian  style  55  ; of  Euphranor  359,  3.  Female 
head,  Pheidian  66,  1.  Head  of  Meleager  304,  3. 
‘Narkissos’  272,  4 (r),  (s).  Paris  359  seq.  Attic 
grave-relief  408,  10.  Polykleitan  torso  238,  1. 
Female  torso,  Pergamene  style  328,  6.  Motive  of 
Venus  of  Capua  385,  1 (e). 

Royal  Museum  : Hermes,  bronze  232.  Terra-cotta 
relief  with  figure  from  Parthenon  frieze  431,  5. 

CORNETO. 

Two  replicas  of  ‘ Sappho  ’ head  66,  2 (/  and  m). 

DRESDEN 

Aphrodite,  bronze  388  seq.  ; with  Triton  305,  3 ; 

head  of  345.  Ares  Borghese,  replica  148.  Artemis, 
Praxitelean  324.  Asklepios  (‘Zeus’)  55.  Athena 
Lemnia  4 sqq.  Head  of  Athena,  cast  73  sll- 
Athlete  statues,  Lysippian  364,  2.  Athlete  head, 
Polykleitan  282,  8;  from  Perinthos  170.  Dia- 
dumenos head  240  sqq.  Head  of  Diomede,  cast 
148.  Dionysos,  Polykleitan  school  272, 1.  Tripodbasis 
441.  Herakles  torso  248,  4.  299;  head,  Polykleitan 
234, 1 ; resting  274,  2;  looking  upward  344, 1 ; bronze, 
cast  of  283,  3.  Hermes  with  winged  head  363. 
Youth  (style  of  Euphranor  ?)  312.  Boy,  Poly- 
kleitan 266  sqq.  ; crowning  himself  251.  Oil- 
pourer  259, 4;  do.  259.  Palladion  (‘  Dresden  Pallas  ’) 
439.  Phaon,  so-called  69,  3.  Infant  Ploutos  296, 
1,  2.  Satyr  pouring  wine  310  sqq.  Motive  of 
Venus  of  Milo  380  seq.  Kourotrophos  on  votive 
relief  332,  1. 

EDINBURGH 

Statue  from  Kyrene  278  seq. 


INDEX 


479 


ENGLAND 

Private  Collections:  Blacker:  Diadumenos,  terra- 
cotta 239,  S. 

Broadi.ands  (Hampshire)  : Athena  of  Velletri, 

replica  141,  2 ( a ).  Head  of  Hermes  57  ; of 

Herakles,  Polyldeitan  234,  1. 

Deepdene  in  Surrey  (Hope  collection)  : Athena  73, 
4.  76  sqq.  Dionysos  323,  5.  Resting  Satyr  after 
Praxiteles,  head  329,  5. 

Ince  Blundell  Hall  (Lancashire)  : Head  of 
athlete  172.  Dionysos,  Polykleitan  school  272,  1 (r). 

‘ Theseus  ’94,  1.  359,  3. 

Lansdowne  House  (London)  : Amazon  134  seq. 
Apollo,  ‘ Adonis  ’ type  354,  4.  Athena  of  Velletri, 
replica  141,  2 (cl).  Statue  of  athlete  17 1.  Marcus 
Aurelius  92,  4.  Boxer  245,  3.  Statue  of  Herakles 
296  sqq.-,  of  Hermes,  Polykleitan  288  sqq.  Head 
of  Hermes  290.  Belvedere  Hermes,  replica  338, 
I.  Paris  358  seq. 

Petworth  House  (Sussex)  : Amazon  130,  138. 
Head  of  athlete  with  fillet  161  sqq.  Oil-pourer 
257  seq.  Aphrodite,  Praxitelean  343  sqq.  (removed 
to  Lord  Leconfield’s  London  residence). 

Richmond  (Collection  of  Sir  Francis  Cook)  : Apollo, 
‘Adonis’  type  354,  4.  Hermes  bronze  233,  1. 
Vase  with  Blinding  of  Polyphemos  109. 

Belonging  to  A.  H.  Smith,  Esq.:  terra-cotta  relief 
with  figs.  133,  134  of  north  frieze  of  Parthenon, 
43  U 5- 

Presumably  in  England:  Diomede  148.  Athena 
73,  4.  Polykleitan  boy  266,  1. 


FLORENCE 

Uffizi  : Aphrodite  and  Ares  384,  6.  392,  7.  394,  1. 
Asklepios,  severe  style  205  sqq.  Athena  305,  1 (a). 
Athlete  ( apoxyomenos ) 205.  260,  3.  261,  1.  515. 
519.  Doryphoros,  statue  228,  1 ; torso  228;  head 
229,  1.  Boxer  (?)  247,  1.  Hermes,  Praxitelean 
338,  4.  Leda  392,  394.  Niobids  394.  Venus  of 
Medici  345. 

Museo  Etrusco  : Chimaira  134,  5.  Idolino  283 
sqq.  290.  350  sqq. 

Palazzo  Pitti:  Aphrodite, Knidian  322.3(5).  Apollo, 
severe  style  81.  Athena,  Giustiniani  type  359,  4 (d). 
Doryphoros  head  229.  Herakles  296,  3.  Hermgs 
2S9,  2.  Praxitelean  head  (Triptolemos  ? ) 334,  4. 
Oil-pourer  259,  9.  Supposed  ‘ Sappho  ’ 69,  7. 
Giardino  Boboli  : Aphrodite  head  345.  Athlete 
(‘  Harmodios’)  171.  ‘Hera,’  replica  of  Capitoline 
type  (=  Ov.  K.  M.  461,  6),  cf.  p.  82.  Hermes 
and  Dionysos  230.  Female  head,  Myronian  202. 
Motive  of  Venus  of  Capua  385,  1 (d). 

Palazzo  Cepparelli  : Draped  female  statue  69. 
Palazzo  Riccardi  : Anakreon  60,  7 ( b ).  So-called 
‘ Eubouleus  ’ 331,  1.  Bust  of  hero,  Myronian 
ib$sqq.  *"  Sappho’  head  66,  2 (e).  Head  of  vic- 
torious athlete  with  fillet  161,  3 (c).  169,  5.  Head 
of  Zeus  190,  2. 

Palazzo  Vecchio:  Hermes,  Belvedere  type  338,  1. 


GENEVA. 

Ares,  bronze  230.  Vase  from  Magna  Graecia,  after 
prototype  of  Pheidian  style  109,  5. 

GENOA. 

Palazzo  Reat.e:  ‘ Narkissos  ’ 272,  4 (i) 

HANOVER. 

Kestner  Museum  : Pan  270,  1 (i) 

LEYDEN. 

Pan  270  seq. 

LONDON. 

British  Museum  : Apollo  statue,  bronze  from 
Lower  Egypt  353  ; head,  of  Pourtales  165,  1 ; do. 
from  Baths  of  Caracalla  ibid.  ; do.  (‘Alexander’) 
41 1 ; do.  resting  337,  2.  do.  Kithairoidos  305,  6. 
Ares,  bronze  230.  Aristaios  (?)  statue  from  Kyrene 
277.  Athena, bronze  of  severe  style  16,1  (1).  23,11; 
head  of  Velletri  type  141,2  (e).  Athlete,  Westmacott 
250  sqq.  Athlete  statuette,  Polykleitan  265. 
Diadumenos,  Vaison  238  sqq.  242  sqq. ; Farnese 
244.  Diskobolos  161,  4.  Eros,  so-called  Elgin  256. 
Sculptured  drum  from  Ephesos  301  seq.  Herakles 
bearded,  Myronian  178.  Aberdeen  head,  Praxi- 
telean 346  seq.  Hero,  statue  of  298.  Kanephoros, 
Praxitelean  337,  1 {c ).  Bearded  head  (Asklepios  ?) 
210;  another  205.  Mercury,  bronze  from  Gaul  232. 
Disc  with  relief  of  the  Niobids  43,  4.  Female 
statue  from  Ostia  (‘Townley  Venus’)  ^iqseq.  Two 
statues  of  Pan  270,  1 (b),  (c).  Perikles,  terminal  bust 
177  sqq.  Pheidias’s  portrait  on  shield  48.  ‘ Sappho  ’ 
head  66,  2 (c).  Xanthos,  three  torsos  of  severe 
style  23,  5.  Nereid  monument  450.  Zeus,  bronze 
statuette  299. 

Private  Collections  : supra , ENGLAND. 

LYONS. 

Hypnos,  two  small  bronze  replicas  395,  8. 

MADRID. 

Athena,  statue  related  to  Lemnia  27. 

Athena  head,  Velletri  type  141,  2 (/). 

Birth  of  Athena,  relief  463  seq.  Diadumenos  240  seq. 
Diomedes  (?),  head  149,  3.  Dionysos  337.  Iide- 
fonso  group  257.  Female  head  60.  ‘ Sappho- 

Phaon,’  terminal  bust  66,  2 (/  ).  Venus  of  Capua 
motive  385,  1 (b). 

MANTUA. 

Apollo  19.  25.  52  seq.  194.  197.  354,  5.  359,  4 (')• 
Eubouleus  331,  1.  Narkissos  272,  4 (e),  (h) 

MUNICH. 

Glyttothek  : Aphrodite  322  and  note  5.  Apollo, 
Barberini  88.  305,  6 ; head  of,  ‘ Adonis  ’ type 
354,  4 (placed  on  the  ‘Jason’).  Artemis  of 
Gabii  52,  4.  439  seq.  ‘Artemis’  (Tyche)  325. 
Athena  60  and  note  6 ; Albani  141,  2 sqq. 
Athlete,  black  marble  264,  1 (B).  Diomedes  146 


480 


INDEX 


sqq.  341,  2.  Eirene  295  seq.  Faun  of  Winckelmann 
359.  Youth,  head  of  Si.  Boy,  bronze  head,  291. 
Medusa  Rondanini  156  s-qq.  Oil-pourer  204.  259 
seq.  287.  296.  312.  Paris,  head  358.  Head  of 

strategos  (‘Perikles’)  118,  1.  122,  2.  Zeus 

statue  212  sqq. 

Antiquarium  : Zeus,  bronze  299. 

Brunn,  belonging  to : Apollo,  Cassel  type,  head 
191,  1 (7). 

NAPLES. 

Amazon,  bronze  terminal  bust  138  seq.  ; bronze 
statuette  140,  1.  Antinous  353,  5.  Aphrodite, 
torso  359.  Apollo,  bronze  statue  52,  6 ; head  of 
Cassel  type  191,  1 (8);  do.  on  gladiator  411. 
Archidamos  321,  1.  Ares,  Ludovisi  type  304,  5. 
Asklepios  89,  6.  Aphrodite  (‘ Kallipygos ’)  395. 
Athena,  Farnese  73  sqq.  82.  141.  144  ; Giustiniani 
type  359,  4 ( e ) ; head  of  Pheidian  13,  1 ; do.  from 
Herculaneum  60.  Athlete,  bronze  head,  Poly- 
kleitan  283  ; Athlete  type  used  for  Roman  portrait 
282.  Dionysos  and  Eros  3 1 1 , 2.  Doryphoros  statue 
228,  2.  233,  7-  Head  of,  by  Apollonios  229.  Electra 
351.  Eros  Centocelle  type  315.  Flora  Farnese  323. 

‘ Gladiator’  Farnese  125  seq.  Harmodios  148.  Hera 
Farnese  144,  2.  223,  1.  Herakles,  head,  Polykleitos 
95,  I.  Hermes,  statue  289  ; statuette  338,  5.  Boy 
victor  291.  Two  bronze  heads,  Skopasian  296. 

1 Narkissos  ’ 272,  4 ( 0 ).  ‘Psyche’  of  Capua  395. 
Portrait  in  the  Doryphoros  motive  231,  3 ; in  the 
Diadumenos  motive  247,  2.  ‘ Sappho  ’ head  66,  2 

(;/).  68,  2.  ‘Sappho,’  Albani  replica  68,  2. 
Dancing  Satyr  410,  2.  ‘ Dancing  girls’  of  Hercu- 

laneum 24.  seq.  291,  7.  Vases  109  sqq.  Venus  of 
Capua,  384  sqq. 

OLYMPIA 

Sculptures  of  the  Zeus  temple  12,  3.  16.  20  seq. 
23.  60.  62.  90,  3.  1 7 1.  seq.  '175.  188.  291,  4. 
302.  457.  Aphrodite,  small  head  322.  345. 
Apollo  (?)  172,  3.  Asklepios  55,  6.  Bases  of 
Polykleitan  statues  224  seq.  249  sqq.  256.  262  sqq. 
279  sqq.  308  ; of  the  works  of  Sophokles  307  seq. ; 
of  the  Zanes  249.  308.  343.  Basis  in  form  of  astra- 
gal 249,  2.  256.  Buildings  of  the  fourth  century 
308.  Basis  of  Smikythos  214,  4.  Ergasterion  of 
Pheidias  39.  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  307  sqq.  337 
sqq.  Victor  statues,  iconic  128,  2.  Olympian 
games,  institution  of,  on  vase  no,  2.  Torso, 
Argive  type  215,  2.  Doryphoros,  copy  228.  Zeus 
of  Pheidias  36  sqq. 

OXFORD 

‘ Sappho  ’ head  66,  2 (;-). 

PALERMO 

Hermes,  head  290,  6 (b).  Pan,  head  270,  1 (it).  Satyr 
pouring  wine  312,  1.  Selinos  sculptures,  Aktaion 
metope  223,  1. 

PARIS 

Louvre":  Marble  sculptures:  Amazon  132.  Anak- 
reon  60,  7.  Aphrodite  ‘ Genetrix  ’ 19.  82.  275,  10. 


323  ; of  Knidos  322,  3 (1),  (10),  (11)  ; of  Kos  323 
seq. ; head  391,  1.  Apollo  of  Cassel  type  191,  1 (2), 
191  seq.,  torso  191,  1 (2),  head  191,  1 (5).  A. 

‘ Mazarin,’  Mantua  type  52,  6 ; at  rest  337,  2. 
Torso,  Argive  52,  2 (a)  ; early  Praxitelean  314. 
Ares,  Borghese  89.107.  148.  Head  of  Ares,  Phei- 
dian 92  seq.  Asklepios  or  Zeus  188,  3 (3).  Head 
of  Asklepios  (?)  210.  ‘Aspasia’  head  81,  1 ( b ). 
Athena,  Farnese  type  76,  3 (b)  ; of  Velletri 
141  sqq.  Diadumenos,  torso  239  ; head  240. 

‘ Diane  de  Gabies  ’ 323  ; ‘ de  Versailles  ’ 328,  409. 
Diomede  146  sqq.  Dionysos  resting  ( ‘ Bacchus  de 
Versailles’)  337,  4.  Dioskouros  231.  Eros  of  the 
Palatine  313  seq.  Boxer,  severe  style  171  seq. 

‘ Germanicus  ’ 57,  2.  Genius  Borghese  336. 
Herakles,  Skopasian  301  ; severe  style  82  ; similar 
to  the  Ares  Borghese  298,  3.  Flero,  torso  298,  1. 
Hermes  head  290,  5.  Two  statues  of  a youth  with 
foot  supported  303,6.  ‘Jupiter  de  Versailles’ 
(Poseidon?)  104.  Meleager,  torso  304,  3.  ‘Mer- 
cure  Richelieu  ’ 289  seq.  ‘ Miltiades  ’ head,  Pheidian 
36,  1.  90.  ‘ Narkissos  ’ 272,  4 ( f ) and  (t).  Nike  of 
Samothrake  310.  ‘ Oil-pourer  ’ 261,  1.  ‘Sappho’ 

statue  68,  2 ( 1 ) ; head  66,  2 (o).  Satyr  from  the 
Palatine  330.  Torso  allied  to  the  Lemnia  26  seq. 
Tyche  325,  1.  Aphrodite  (Venus  d’Arles)  319  seq. 
Aphrodite  from  Melos  (Venus  de  Milo)  367  seq. 
Venus  Falerone  385,  1 (a)  ; and  Mars  384,  6. 
Venus  of  Capua  motive  385,  1 (c).  ‘Virgil’  102 
seq.  Zeus  statue  188,  1.  Zeus,  Chthonic  212,  1. 
Zeus  Talleyrand  42. 

Bronzes  and  the  smaller  arts : Apollo,  Argive  style 
(‘ Achille ’)  52,  4.  Athlete,  Polykleitan  279.  With 
fillet  (?)  278.  Dionysos,  supposed  Praxitelean 
337,5.  354,1.  Wooden  female  figure,  severe  style 
23,  6.  Head  from  Beneventum  290  seq.  Mercury 
232.  Vases : Krater  with  Expiation  of  Orestes  109- 
BibliothI;que  Nationale  : Bronzes:  Aristaios  (?) 
276  seq.  Diadumenos  239,  7.  Four  Mercury 
bronzes  232,  3 ; 233,  2 ; 233,  4 ; 233,  6.  Hydria 
(frieze  of  Argonauts)  109.  Lekythos  124. 

Ecole  des  Beaux-Arts  : Torso  Medici  27  sqq. 


PARMA. 

Eros  torso  313,  2. 


POMPEII 

Stucco  relief,  Eros  316,  9.  Wall-painting,  athlete 
162,  2. 


ROME 


Vatican  : Galleria  Lapidaria:  Herakles  298,  2. 
Boy  victor,  Dresden  type  266,  2 (b).  Torso  of  boy 
302,  3- 

Braccio  Nuovo : Artemis  57  ; do.  104,  4.  Asklepios, 
beardless  300,  3.  Athena,  Giustiniani  359  sqq. 
Athletes  260,  3.  262,  I.  264,  1.  (A).  302,  3.  Horned 
river-god  (?)  46.  55.  81.  102,  3.  Medusa  mask 
156.  Satyr  resting  329. 

Museo  Chiaramonti : Aphrodite  of  Knidos,  statuette 
322,  3.  Apollo,  Argive  type  52,  2 (/>).  Artemis, 
torso  329  Asklepios  188,  3 (6).  Athena,  Praxite- 


INDEX 


481 


lean  326,  2.  A.  head,  Skopasian  305,  1.  Charites 
relief  20.  25,  1.  29.  Doryphoros,  torso  228,  7 ; 

head  229,  1.  Hephaistos  head  89.  Hera  head  84, 
1.  Herakles  with  Telephos  341  seq.  Lysippian 
363,  3.  Head,  Polykleitan  234,  1.  Hermes, 
head,  Polykleitan  250,  6.  Head,  Dresden  boy 
266,  3 ( b ).  Boy  victor  291,  5.  Youthful  god 

102,  4 (b)  ; bearded,  Pheidian  (?)  64  ; Myronian  (?) 
204.  ‘ Narkissos’  272,  4 (b).  ‘Niobid’  394. 

1 Phaon  ’ 69,  3.  ‘ Sappho  ’ 66,  2 (f).  Satyr 

pouring  wine,  head  310,  2. 

Giardino  della  Pigna:  Torso,  Venus  of  Capua  type 

38S,  I (b). 

Belvedere  and  Cortile : Apollo  328.  405  sqq.  Athena 
‘Plygieia’  15,  2.  Doryphoros,  allied  to  the  231, 
3.  Herakles,  torso  399.  Plenties  238.  338.  Me- 
leager 184. 

Galleria  delle  Statue  : Amazon  132.  \yq  sqq.  Athena 
Lemnia,  head  6.  Another  A.  head  326,  3. 
Athlete,  Polykleitan  281  seq.  Augustus,  statue 
156,  I.  Eros  Centocelle  315  sqq.  Menander  309, 
3.  Mercury  Ingenui  182  seq.  Neptune  184  seq. 
Paris,  seated  357,  5.  Penelope,  head  (Diadumenos) 
245,  1.  Poseidippos  309,  3.  ‘ Septimius  Severus  ’ 

282,  2. 

Gabinetto  delle  Maschere  : Apollo,  ‘ Adonis  ’ 354  sqq. 
Loggia  Scoperta  : Plenties  165,  2. 

Hall  of  the  Muses : Apollo  Kithairoidos  305.  Poet, 
head  63.  Perikles  117  sqq.  Themislokles  122,  2. 
Rotunda  : ‘ Ceres  ’ (Nemesis  ?)  88.  Hera  Barberini 
82.  Herakles,  bronze  gilt  296,  3.  Zeus  Otricoli 
190.  342. 

Sala  a Croce  greca : Aphrodite  of  Knidos  322,  3. 

Athlete,  Polykleitan  282,  3. 

Sala  della  Biga  : ‘ Alkibiades  ’ 1 26  seq.  Diskobolos 
173,  4.  Diskophoros  90.  137.  287. 

Galleria  dei  Candelabri : Eros  316,  4.  Hermes  338, 
5.  Youth,  Polykleitan  238,  1.  Pan  270,  1 ( d ). 
Satyr  pouring  wine  302,  3.  Head  310,  2. 

Sala  Geografica : Hermes  head  290,  5 ( b ) 

Vestibule  : Athlete,  Polykleitan  282,  3.  Doryphoros 
head  229,  1. 

Magazino : Aphrodite  of  Knidos  322,  3 (1). 

Museum  of  the  Capitol:  Ground  floor:  Asklc- 
pios  or  Zeus  188,  3.  Athena  (Agorakritos  ?)  88. 
Athlete,  head  bound  with  thongs  204,  6. 

Upper  floor : Amazon  132  sqq.  Antinous  353,  5. 
Aphrodite  head  392,  4;  of  Knidos  322,  3 (13). 
Apollo  statue,  severe  style  49.  55.  197,  2.  Ter- 
minal bust,  severe  style  55-  Athena  Giustiniani 
replica  359,  4 ; a terminal  bust  60,  5 (3).  Well- 
head, archaistic  441.  ‘ Demeter  ’ 82.  Diskobolos 

173,  4.  Eubouleus  331,  1.  ‘Giunone’  head, 
Skopasian  392.  Hermes,  foot  supported  303. 

‘ Plygieia’  allied  to  Pheidias  27.  Youth,  statue  of 
363.  Female  head,  Pheidian  66,  r.  Bearded  head 
with  helmet  90,  2.  Portrait-statue,  seated  309,  3. 
Satyr  resting  329,  5.  Venus  and  Mars  384,  6. 
Conservator  1 Palace  : Amazon,  head  132,  1. 
Anakreon  60,  7 (<*)•  Apollo,  resting  337,  2.  Ares 
(supposed  Eros)  271,  1.  Athena,  Velletri  type 
1 4 1 , 2.  Eros,  Centocelle  type  316.  Camillus  20. 


Head,  Riccardi  type  165,  2 (<z).  Runners  128,  1. 
Pan  270,  1 (e).  Paris  357,  5.  Charioteer  81. 
Lateran  : Ares  92.  Herakles,  Polykleitan  234,  1. 
Hero,  head  298,  1.  Youth,  torso  of  (Pythagoras?) 
172,  3.  Head  of  boy  crowning  himself  252,  3. 
Head  of  statue  by  Stephanos,  replica  214,  1. 
Marsyas  180  seq.  Pan,  head  270,  1 (h).  Torso, 
allied  to  Parthenos  27 ; allied  to  Doryphoros 
23R  3- 

Museo  delle  Terme  : Apollo,  Pheidian  49.  197. 
Asklepios  head  89,  6.  Athena,  Olympian  style 
16,  8.  23,  8.  Head,  Giustiniani  type  359,  4 (/z). 
Athlete  head  296,  6.  Diomedes,  statuette  of  149,  3 ; 
torso  of  ibid.  Dionysos  of  Tivoli  350  sqq.  Dios- 
curi on  sarcophagus  100,  4.  Eros,  Centocelle 
type  316.  Hera,  Barberini  type  84,  2.  Plermes  of 
the  Palatine  300  seq.  Boy  victor,  statue  291,  6 ; 
derived  from  the  Polykleitan  boy  255,  6 ; Pan, 
head  270,  1 (/). 

Villa  Albani  : Amazon,  head  132,  1.  Ares  or 
Hero  230,  3.  Artemis,  statue  26.  Relief  329,  3. 
Athena  with  skin  helmet  55.  78  seq.  Replica  of 
the  Farnese  Athena  (now  lost)  76,  3 ( d ).  A.  head, 
bronze  78.  Herakles  340.  Hermes  or  portrait 
231,  3.  Kanephoroi,  Praxitelean  337,  1 [b).  Boy, 
early  Pheidian,  crowning  [himself  251,4.  255,  4. 
Head,  youthful  ‘Alexander’  103,  1.  Female 
head,  early  Pheidian  60.  Another,  idealized 
portrait  328,  3.  ‘Lysias’  81.  Paris,  head  358,  3. 

‘ Peisistratos  ’ 175  seq.  ‘Sappho,’  statue  68,  2. 
Head  66,  2 (z).  69  seq.  Sauroktonos  336,  2.  Stra- 
tegos,  head  122,  2.  Venus  Torlonia  384,  5 (a). 
Museo  Torlonia  : Aphrodite  of  Knidos  322,  3 
(3),  (4).  Ares,  head  92,  2.  Asklepios  188,  3 (9). 
Athena,  Giustiniani  type  359,  4 (c).  Athlete, 
Polykleitan,  torso  282,  4,  head  282,  6 ; head,  replica 
of  Florentine  athlete  262,  1.  Diadumenos  type,  in- 
fluenced by  247,  2.  Dionysos,  severe  style  42. 
Doryphoros  head  229,  1.  Eirene  296,  1.  Hestia 
Giustiniani  81.  Bearded  head,  with  winged  fdlet 
63  seq.  Female  head,  Pheidian  66,  1 ( b and  c). 
Boy  crowning  himself,  torso  251,  3.  Head  of 
252,  1,  modified  255,  3.  Dresden  boy,  replica 
266,  2 (a).  Torso,  Skopasian  (?)  302,  3.  Medusa 
Rondanini,  two  replicas  156.  Meleager  304,  3. 
Oil-pourer  259,  9.  ‘ Phaon  ’ head  69,  3.  Torso 

299,  2.  Wrongly  interpreted  as  Satyr  pouring 
wine  310,  2.  Tyche  325,  1. 

Villa  Borgiiese  : Artemis  : 324,  1.  Athena  89,  3. 
326,  2.  Meleager  184,  2.  ‘Narkissos’  272,  4 (d). 
Oil-pourer  259,  9.  ‘ Sappho  ’ heads  62,  2 (g  and 

h).  Torso,  Argive  type  299,  1.  Venus  and  Mars 
384,  6. 

Museo  Boncompagni-Ludovisi  : Aphrodite,  of 
Knidos  322,  3 (6).  Apollo  head  337,  2.  Ares  304. 
‘Hera’  head  326  seq.  Terminal  figures,  series  of 
248,  4.  299.  357.  Hermes  57.  ‘ Sappho  ’ 66,  2 

(r).  Female,  torso,  severe  style,  144,  4. 

Museo  Kircheriano  : Asklepios  188,  3 (7).  Fico- 
roni  Cista  in. 

Mr.  Abuati’s  At.:  Petworth  athlete,  replica  of 
head  161,  3 {a). 


482 


INDEX 


Pal.  Altemps  : Asklepios  or  Zeus  188,  3.  Herakles 
seated  202  seq. 

Pal.  Barberini  : Asklepios  and  Hygieia  206  seq. 
Youth,  Idolino  type  287.  Head,  bearded  55. 

‘ Narkissos’  272,  4 (m).  Suppliant  20.  395. 

Barracco  Collection  : Amazon  132,  1.  Aphro- 
dite, head  of  391,  1.  Apollo,  Cassel  type  191,  1 
(6).  Resting  337,  2.  Athena  head  438,  2.  Dia- 
dumenos,  head  of  240.  Doryphoros,  head  of  229, 
1.  Youth,  Polykleitan  (Hermes?)  238,  1.  Boy 
crowning  himself  250.  Dresden  boy,  replica  of 
head  266,  3 (r).  Head,  Pheidian  57.  Marsyas 
181,  4.  Perikles  118.  ‘ Sappho’  66,  2 (k). 

Pal.  Borghese  : Ares  92  seq.  Herakles  298,  2. 

Pal.  Caetani  : Aphrodite,  head  of  389  sqq. 

Caracalla  Thermae  : Torso,  Polykleitan  238,  1 
(<-)• 

Monte  Cavallo  : Dioscuri  95  sqq. 

Pal.  Chigi  : Apollo  (‘  Adonis  ’)  354,  4. 

Pal.  Colonna  : Amazon  135,  1.  Athlete,  Poly- 
kleitan 282,  4.  Hermes,  Polykleitan  289.  Head, 
with  helmet  90,  2.  ‘ Narkissos’  272,  4 (/•).  Zeus 

head  (Myronian)  190,  1 ( b ). 

Pal.  Doria  : Meleager  304,  3.  ! Narkissos  ’ 272,  4 

(/)• 

Pal.  Giustiniani  : Apollo  165,  1.  Diadumenos, 
torso  239.  Head  242.  Doryphoros  228,  7.  Ask- 
lepios 188,  3. 

Pal.  Massimi  alle  Colonne  : Doryphoros,  two 
torsos  228,  7.  Herakles  296,  3. 

Pal.  Mattei  : Apollo  resting  337,  2.  Oilpourer, 
restored  torso  259,  4. 

Villa  Mattei  : Statue  related  to  Parthenos  27,  5. 
Doryphoros  229,  1.  Torso,  Polykleitan  238,  1 (a). 

Villa  Medici  : Head  of  Meleager  304,  3.  338,  3. 
Aphrodite  of  Knidos  322,  3 (9).  Torso,  Praxi- 
telean  338,  3. 

Monteverde  Collection  : Eros,  Centocelle  type 
316,  2. 

Pal.  Odescalchi  : Aphrodite  400. 

Villa  Pamfili  : Amazon  129. 

Pal.  del  Quirinale  : Boy  crowning  himself  250. 

Casino  Rospigliosi  : Athena  305,  1.  ‘Narkissos’ 
272,  4 (e). 

Pal.  Sciarra  : Tyche  325,  1.  Amazon  132,  3.  Cf. 
Addenda 

Pal.  Torlonia  : Amazon  135,  1.  Athena,  head  of 
76,  3.  Youth,  head  of  81,  3.  Meleager,  torso 
(restored  as  Hermes)  304,  3. 

Pal.  Valentini  : Aphrodite  400.  ‘ Diomedes’  204. 

Doryphoros  229,  1,  modification  of  (Pertinax) 
2 3h  3- 

In  the  Market:  Diadumenos,  head  240.  Herakles, 
Argive  type  357,  4- 

ST.  PETERSBURG. 

Hermitage:  Amazon  132,  1.  Aphrodite,  Hellenistic 
392,  6.  Apollo,  ‘Adonis’  type  354,  4-  Artemis 


bust  329.  Athena,  Velletri  type  141,  2 (c). 
Giustiniani  159,  4 (g).  Athlete  head,  Polykleitan 
282,  7.  Florence  athlete,  replica  262,  1.  Athlete 
restored  as  Mercury  268  seq.  Doryphoros  head 
229,  3.  Gem  with  Hippolytos  248.  Hermes, 
winged  Polykleitan  290,  4.  Female  head,  early 
Pheidian  57  ; later  Pheidian  104,  4 ; head,  bearded 
Myronian  178;  of  the  boy  crowning  himself  252; 
Niobid  relief  43,  4 ; Parthenos,  allied  to  the  27. 
Vase  with  Adonis  275,  10.  Attic  krater  no,  2. 
Tarentine  109  seq.  Zeus  or  Asklepios  statue  186 
sqq. 

Stroganoff  Collection  : Aphrodite  head  391,  1. 

Apollo  bronze  405  sqq. 

1’awlowsk  : Eros  315,  4. 

SARAGOSSA 
Apollo,  bronze,  forgery  407. 

SMYRNA. 

Female  head  from  Tralles  398. 

SPIRES  (Speier). 

Mercury,  Polykleitan  style  283,  2. 

STOCKHOLM. 

Female  head  84,  4. 

TREVES. 

Athena  with  skin  helmet,  two  replicas  80,  1.  Pet- 
worth,  replica  of  head  161,  3 (h).  Venus  of  Milo 
motive  380. 

TURIN. 

Amazon  138,  2.  Asklepios  and  Hygieia  385,  3. 
Athena  326,  2.  Diadumenos  239.  Eros  Cento- 
celle, replica  315.  Head,  youth  with  fillet  247. 
Plypnos,  small  bronze  395,  S.  Oil  pourer  260,  3. 
Marble  seat  with  reliefs  162,  2. 

VENICE. 

Torso,  supposed  from  the  Parthenon  456. 

VERONA. 

Amazon,  forged,  bronze  137,  1. 

VIENNA. 

Aphrodite,  head  from  Tralles  39§-  Artemis  from 
Cyprus  326.  Doryphoros  228,  7.  ‘ Hera  ’ of 

Ephesos  84,  4.  Herakles,  bronze  299.  Youth, 
from  Carinthia  290.  Mercury,  bronze  233,  5.  Pan 
270,  1 {,q).  Venus  torso  384,  5 (/>). 

WORLITZ. 

Amazon  132.  132,  1.  136,  4. 

ZURICH. 

Hermes,  bronze  155. 


INDEX 


483 


III.  GENERAL 


Achieeeae  statute  233.  7. 

Adonis  255.  275. 

Aegis,  shape  of,  in  fifth  century  10.  78.  So.  141  seq. 
Transverse  16. 

Aegis,  scales  on  helmet  60. 

Aegis,  Medusa  type  158,  3. 

Aeschylos,  portrait  304,  3. 

Agathe  Tyche  349. 

Agothodaimon  ibid. 

Agrippina  326,  7. 

Akanthos  437  seq.  450. 

Alexander,  portrait  by  Lysippos  301,  1.  364,  2 (Alex- 
ander Balas). 

Alkibiades  432  ; supposed  statue  of  127. 

Amazonomachia,  on  shield  of  Parthenos  44.  On  vases 
109. 

Amazons  128  sqq.  Legend  of  13 1.  Polyldeitan  type 
128.  130.  134.  Capitoline  128.  Mattei  30.  130. 
132.  136.  140;  by  Phradmon  128.  130.  140;  by 
Strongylion  140. 

Anakreon  39.  1 1 7,  4.  149,  2. 

Anecdotes  of  artists  21,2.  84. 

Antinous,  statue  353.  Head,  Mondragone  18. 

Aphrodite,  nude  archaic  387,  1 ; nude  later  art  387  ; 
half  draped  386  seq. ; with  shield  386  ; formation  of 
eyes  345  ; diadem  389 ; fillet  ibid.  ; terminal 
274  ; A.  and  Ares  385  sqq.  383  ; and  Tyche  3S1  ; 
and  Nike  386  ; Anadyomeneby  Pheidias  43  ; other 
statues  of  Pheidian  school  71.  249.399^7.;  ‘ Gene- 
trix’  (Alkamenes)  19,  3.  82.  275,  10.  323  ; by 
Praxiteles  318  sqq.  343  sqq.\  by  Skopas  391.  329. 
395  j by  Euphranor  358  ; Kallipygos  395.  Medi- 
cean  type  345.  387.  398  ; of  Melos  367  sqq. ; of 
Capua|384  ; MrjAei'a  382,  2 ; Ourania  71.  274  ; Pan- 
demos 394 

Apollo  : characterization  ofhead  49.  194.  336.  Attri- 
butes 408.  Patroos  461  seq.  363.  Hypakraios 
461,  12.  Smintheus  303.  336.  388.  Sauroktonos 
336.  388.  396.  Argive  52.  Style  of  Kritios  53  seq. 
197.  Mantuan  type  19.  25.  51.  52.  194.  195.  Early 
Pheidian  49  sqq.  ; allied  to  later  49  sqq.  On  the 
Omphalos  81.  175  182.  190.  196,  2.  197.  Cassel 
type  190  sqq.  Barberini  (Agorakritos  ?)  88.  Later 
Pheidian  410  sqq.  Praxitelean,  Sauroktonos  336. 
338;  at  rest  337.  314.  Head  Pourtales  165  seq. 
Palatine  305,  6.  Kitharoidos,  older  type  ibid. , 
Skopasian  305.  By  Euphranor  352  seq.  354  sqq. 
By  Leochares  408  sqq.  Belvedere  328.  405  sqq. 
Stroganoff  405  sqq.  Steinhauser  409. 

Aposkopeuon,  motive  of  254,  3. 

Apoxyomenos,  Attic  261,  2 ; Polyldeitan  262  ; Lysip- 
pian  300  seq.  304.  338.  341,  r.  351. 

Apulia,  vases  109  seq. 

Archidamos  122,  2.  321  seq. 


Ares,  Pheidian  92  seq.  155.  By  Alkamenes  89  seq.  95. 

Polyldeitan  230.  271.  Skopasian  304  seq. 

Arethas  31,  9. 

Argive  characters  225. 

Argos,  and  Athens  200  ; and  Sikyon  225.  Sculptures 
from  Ileraion  243. 

Aristaios  278. 

Aristandros  of  Taros  302. 

Aristeides  421,  422. 

Aristodemos,  Doryphoros  by  164,  1. 

Aristophanes  445,  6.  449.  451. 

Artemis,  statues  26.  52,  4.  57.  323.  324.  326  sqq. 
Head  of,  severe  style  223,  1.  On  Parthenon  frieze 
431.  With  cap  431,  4.  Brauronia  102,  3.  426,  3. 
431,  4.  432,  3 seq.  388.  Laphria  at  Patrai  388. 
Praxitelean  324  seq.  326. 

Asklepios,  types  in  fifth  century  55.  89.  188  seq.  277,  2. 
277,5.  Myronian  204  sqq.  Types  in  fourth  century 
300  sqq.  Zeus  type  adapted  to  Asklepios  188  seq. 
Snake  without  staff  55,  6.  209.  With  Hygieia  209. 
Beardless  277.  300. 

Aspasia,  so-called  81. 

Athena:  Old,  agrarian  goddess  47 1 ; ancient  olive- 
wood  image  on  the  Akropolis  419.  426.  427  seq.-, 
with  pomegranate  445  ; Polias  and  Parthenos  427  ; 
A.  Nike  444  sqq  ; A.  ritual  on  the  Akropolis  430. 
466  ; Palladion  433.  437  seq. ; P.  robbed  by 
Diomede  149  sqq. ; A.  on  prize-amphoras  439,  6, 
A.  and  Poseidon  456  sqq. ; A.  and  Hades  80. 
1 ; Alalkomeneis8o,  1.  305  ; Itonia  80,  1.  peaceful, 
bareheaded  type  13  sqq.  445  ; with  fillet  15  ; 
short,  gathered-up  hair  16;  skin  helmet  78  seq.  ; 
and  Triton  305  ; A.  severe  style,  with  transverse 
aegis  16.  23,  8 ; relief  and  statuette  21  sqq.  25  ; with 
roll  of  hair  in  neck,  on  coins  16,  1.  Athena 
Lemnia  4 sqq. ; Parthenos  3.  10  sqq.  33  seq.  46.  47. 
49  seq.  105.  107.  143.  Promachos  9.  27  sqq.  46. 
too.  Farnese  type  5.  73  sqq.  82.  141.  144  ; Albani 
55.  78  sqq. ; Pheidian  type,  at  Naples  60  ; Hope  73 
sqq. ; at  Brescia  90  ; (by  Agorakritos  ?)  88.  Velletri 
type  141  sqq.  188.  By  Skopas  305.  394.  By 
Praxiteles  89,  3.  326  ; Giustiniani  type  359  sqq. ; 
from  Pergamon  7.  16,  5.  27.  Types  on  coins 
105  sqq. 

Athens  : ( a ) Akropolis  : ‘ Old  Temple  ’ 415  sqq.  421. 
424.  426.  432.  433.  435.  First  Parthenon  419  sqq. 
424.  Periklean  Parthenon  25.  46,  5.  419.  423  sqq. 
Opisthodomos  425.  Frieze,  interpretation  of  east 
side  427  sqq.  16.  41.  West  pediment,  interpreta- 
tion 451  sqq.  East  pediment  463  sqq.  Propylaia 
gseq.  424.  428.  442  seq.  Erechtheion  415.  432  sqq. 
450  seq.  Temple  of  Athena  Nike  442  sqq.  449  ; 
frieze,  interpretation  445  sqq.  Artemis  Brauronia, 
statue  102,  3.  426,  3.  431,  4.  309?  Treasury  425  ? 


484 


INDEX 


426  ? Parthenoi,  cultus  of  458  sqq.  Erechtheus, 
cultus  of  416.  418.  419.  424.  432.  434.  435.  Ke- 
krops,  cultus  of  434  sqq.  ; how  represented  458 
Snake,  guardian  of  Citadel  436.  Ge  Karpophoros 
421,  4.  468  sqq.  Quadriga  10,  4.  Votive  offerings 
of  Kleruchs  8.  Walls,  northern  420,  2.  432  ; south- 
ern 420.  422.  442.  (/>)  Lower  City  : Stoa  Poikile 

35.  41.  ‘ Theseion  ’ 46.  99.  182,  5.  447.  448. 

Temple  on  the  Ilissos  444,  3.  Cultus  of  Athena 
Ttonia  80,  1.  Cult  of  Iakehos  104,  1.  Cult  of 
Demeter  in  Agrai  444,  3. 

Athlete,  head  bound  with  thongs  204. 

Bases  of  statues,  pillar-shaped  21  ; for  bronzes  286. 
299,  3 ; with  moulded  profile  307  seq. ; with 
Latin  designation  of  artists  95  seq. 

Blood,  drops  indicated  126.  134,  5. 

Boeotian  terra-cotta,  severe  style  23,  4. 

Bonus  Eventus  349  seq.  353. 

Bronze,  colour  of  233,  6.  Forgeries  406.  B.  style  8. 

iS.  134,  2.  391. 

Boutes,  cultus  of  435.  462. 

Bouzyges  462  seq. 

Campana  terra-cotta  reliefs  42,  4.  438. 

Campania,  Attic  vases  in  408  sqq. 

Canova,  his  estimate  of  the  Colossi  of  Monte  Cavallo, 
Addenda  i. 

Carrey,  drawings  451  sqq. 

Carts  or  chariots  in  agrarian  ritual  469  sqq. 

‘ Cauldron  chariots’  471. 

Charites,  relief,  severe  style  20.  23,  1.  29.  On  frieze 
of  Nike  Temple  448  seq. 

Chiusi,  armchair  in  grave  430,  3. 

Coins.  Transference  of  Theidian  style  to  coins  105 
sqq.  ; die-cutters  in  Magna  Graecia  106.  107  seq.  ; 
C.  of  Alexandria  Troas  303,  2 ; Allifa  106,  6 ; 
Amisos  80,  1 ; Amphipolis  ^\oseq.  ; Argos  152,  5 
(Diomede),  200  (Perseus) ; Argos  and  Elis  217  seq. 
223  ; Athens  31.  105.  143.  196,  2.  356  ; of 
Augustus  190,  3 ; of  the  Brettii  255  ; Campanians 
106  ; Corinth  16,  1.  388  ; Crete  116  ; Elis  217  seq. 
Eresos  71,  1 ; Herakleia  Luc.  15.  105,  6.  107  ; 
Ilyria  106  ; Kaulonia  408.  412  ; Klazomenai  410  ; 
Kleonai  237  ; Krannon  469  ; Neapolis  Camp.  106  ; 
Nola  ibid. ; Pale  in  Kephallenia  468  ; Pandosia  106  ; 
Phistelia  ibid ; 107  ; Phokaia  58  ; Poseidonia  107  ; 
Rhodes  410  ; Side  16,  1 (2)  ; Stymphalos  237  ; 
Kyme  105,  2.  106,  3;  Lokri  Epizephyrii  218; 
Melos  381.  382,  3;  Miletos  410,  8;  Mitylene  71, 
1 ; Naxos  Sic.  108  ; Sybaris  105,  2 ; Syracuse  107 
seq.  2x8;  Tarentum  15.  107;  Terina  106;  Thurii 
105  seq.  ; Troezene  249.  255,  9.  ; Athena  type  of 
Thurii,  spread  of  106  seq. 

Copies.  Relation  between  several  copies  of  the  same 
original,  5.  12,  I.  60,  7.  117.  132  sqq.  137,  1.  141, 
2.  165  sqq.  18 1 , 4.  188,  3.  191  sqq.  198  sqq.  210. 
212,  2.  229  seq.  234.  238,  3.  239.  240.  249  sqq. 
259  sqq.  263  seq.  270,  1.  270,  5.  272,  5.  277  seq. 
288  sqq.  296  seq.  304.  310  seq.  314  seq.  319. 
354  seq.  359,  4.  384  sqq.  Copies  and  originals 


compared  334.  343  seq.  Copies  in  relation  to  works 
known  from  tradition  49  sqq.  82.  Copies  made 
with  help  of  casts  3.  Size  of  copies  3.  138,  2 ; 
varying  in  case  of  copies  from  colossal  works  4 ; 
reduced  because  of  costly  material  138,  2.  336,  2 ; 
reduced  for  decorative  purposes,  to  fit  into  series  of 
a given  size  260,  3.  262,  1.  Distinction  between 
variations  introduced  by  copyists  or  different  originals 
76.  82,  9.  92  seq.  165,  1.  212.  240  sqq.  246.  259  sqq. 
384  sqq.  389  seq.  409  seq.  Additions  made  by 
copyists  55,  1.  82.  89,  5.  92.  97.  148.  184.  188.  231. 
272,  5.  289  seq.  304.  314.  315.  323.  330.  354,  4. 
359)  4-  361-  385-  386.  389.  Plastic  rendering  of 
objects  put  on  separately  in  the  original  148.  Free 
copies  of  the  Plellenistic  period  27.  141,  2(g).  In- 
accuracy, especially  in  the  hair  168.  229.  272,  1 (a). 
409.  Adaptations  57,  2.  84,  2.  165,  1.  184.  255. 
274.  283.  289  seq.  316.  322.  325.  345.  Free 
adaptations,  in  bronze  statuettes  231  sqq.  239,  7 ; 
in  terra-cotta  329.  Copies  in  Asia  Minor  terra- 
cottas 239.  Groups  composed  by  copyists  208.  230. 
384  seq.  Artists’ inscriptions  on  copies  95  seq.  194. 
330.  350,  2.  357. 

Corinth,  Aphrodite  of  388.  Puteal  441. 

C rete  1 1 6. 

Delos  : court  for  assembly  378.  Purification  of  444 

Delphi  : group  ded.  by  Athenians  35;  by  Lakedai- 
monians  37  seq.  Phryne  318.  320  seq. 

Demeter  24  ; on  Parthenon  frieze  431. 

Diadumenos  : Polykleitan  23 8 sqq.  ; Farnese  242,  2; 
Petworth  type  161  ; descr.  by  Kallistratos  164,  2. 

Diitrephes  122  seq. 

Diomede  with  Palladion  152  seq.  ; in  Argos  152  ; 
‘ Valentini  ’ 204. 

Dionysos : horned  356,  7 ; short-haired  375.  467. 
Progress  in  cart  469  ; in  boat  471.  Statue,  severe 
style  42.  Polykleitan  255.  272.  Praxitelean  30S, 
8-  3r  L 2.  314.  323,  5.  337.  Tendency  of  Euphranor 
350  sqq.  356.  On  Parthenon  frieze  431. 

Dioskouroi,  typical  grouping  100.  Of  Monte  Cavallo 
95  s!l-  derived  from  Polykleitan  Doryphoros  231  ; 
astragalizontcs  292,  I. 

Doryphoros,  meaning  of  15 1.  162.  228.  Polykleitan 
138.  141.  1 5 1 , 5.  163.  226  sqq.  242  seq.  Kresilaian 
163.  By  Aristodemos  164,  1. 

Ex  RENE  295  seq.  3 1 9.  324. 

Eleusis,  cultus  331  sqq.  Relief  from  336,  I. 

Ephesos,  sculptures  of  second  temple  301  ; founding 
of  temple  131.  Legend  of  Amazons  128  sqq. 

Erichthonios  436.  458. 

Eros  : in  Euripides  317.  With  arrow  317.  Stringing 
bow  394.  Pheidian  69.  316,  2.  Praxitelean  313 
sqq.  Palaestric  314,  I.  ‘ Elgin’  356,  5. 

Erysichthon  on  Parthenon  pediment  458.  Tomb  at 
Prasiai  461. 

Eubouleus  103.  330  sqq . 

Euripides  in  Magna  Graecia  110.  Erechtheus  436,  5 ; 
Ion  461  seq. 

Ficoroni  cista  111, 


INDEX 


485 


Form  : (A.)  Body : (a)  veins  on  the  abdomen  229.  279  ; 
(b)  eye  66.  97,  2.  103.  120.  134.  145.  153.  160.  165, 
1.  170.  1 7 1 . 179.  334.  345;  (c)  eyebrows  (hair  inch, 
cated)  179.  210.  236  ; (d)  nose,  Polykleitan  17  seq. 
154.  243.  291.  in  works  of  Kresilas  120.  122.  154. 
160.  164.  180;  (e)  ear,  swollen  92.  149,  5.  155,  2. 
165.  173.  Form  in  fifth  century  19;  (f)hair:  (1) 
method  of  dressing  roll  16.  57.  64.  194.  351.  Part- 
ing 19.  From  the  crown  to  the  front  19.  186.  Front 
hair  waved  19  seq.  57.  105.  Crown  of  hair  in 
divinities  184.  186  seq.  194.  Knot  on  forehead 
316.  Plait  behind  194.  Plait  on  nape,  Roman 
326.  In  Zeus  42.  217  seq.  In  chthonic  gods  212. 
In  Amazons  136.  138.  Short  hair  in  gods  42.  118. 
217.  356.  468.  Loosewisps  19.  389.  398.  Ringlets 
55.  Kerchief  or  coif  71,  1.  (2 ) Style  and  technique 

8-  3°9-  334-  344-  39[-  399- 

(B.)  Drapery  : ( a ) costume,  Doric  peplos  in  fifth 
century  21  sqq.  ; girt  over  the  dipldis  24.  26.  27  ; 
ungirt  24  ; Ionic  chiton  below  24.  27  ; horseman’s 
cloak  worn  by  Amazon  136;  chiton  with  short 
sleeves  309,  3 ; (3)  style : archaic  29.  Severe 
Peloponnesian  23.  Attic  24.  In  works  of  Pheidias 
25.  On  the  Parthenon  30.  46  seq.  62.  399.  On 
the  Nike  temple  450  seq.  In  Myron’s  works  188. 
In  Kresilas’s  works  134  sqq.  140.  144.  188.  Ionic, 
second  half  of  the  fifth  century  450  seq.  ; in  fourth 
century  310 ; on  the  Niobids  394.  Linen  and 
woollen  29.  46  seq.  134  seq.  144.  Transparency 
S4.  85.  400.  439. 

Ganymede  of  Leochares  408.  410.  On  a gem  275,  1. 

Ge  421,  4.  448,  9.  Karpophoros  468  sqq. 

Gems:  Italian,  similar  to  scarab  style  1 24.  Hellen-' 
istic  380.  Early  Roman  386,  7.  Emerald  plasmas 
with  copies  of  statues  137,  1.  163,  1.  261.  262,  2. 
277,  1.  Amazon  132.  137.  Aphrodite  66, 

8.  Athena  6.  14,  4.  15,  6.  16,  5.  Bonus  Eventus 
350.  Diadumenos  head  244.  Eros  head,  cameo 
69.  Herakles  248.  Hippolytos  248.  Medusa 
201.  1 Narkissos’  motive  274  seq.  Niobids  43,  8. 

‘ Oil-pourer  ’ 260.  Polykleitan  motives  248.  255, 
10.  Apoxyomenos  261.  Victory  3S6,  7.  Paste 
of  Solon  15,  6.  Inscription  HEIOT  6,  3. 

Genius  231,  3. 

Gigantomachia  on  shield  of  Parthenos  45. 

Glaukos,  Argive  artist  215. 

Gold-ivory  statues,  difficulty  in  copying  3 ; technique 
of  drapery  12,  8. 

Grave-reliefs,  Attic  (Telesias)  275,  5.  (Hegeso)  19. 
275,  10.  Reorganization  of  309 

Groups  : of  separate  statues  140  (Eph.  Amazons).  Tut 
together  later  208.  230.  384  seq. 

Gymnasia,  decoration  of  375.  377  seq. 

Hades,  cap  of  80,  1. 

Hair.  See  under  Form. 

Hebe,  on  Parthenon  pediment  465. 

Heiou  gem  6,  3. 

Hekate  of  Alkamenes  90,  3.  442. 

Ilekatompedon  418.  419.  424. 


Helios  on  works  of  Pheidias  : and  Selene  45  ; and 
Nyx  465  seq. 

Hellenotamiai  425. 

Helmet,  Boeotian  446,  4.  Corinthian,  361. 

Ilephaistos,  statue  of  Argive  type  217,  1 ; of  Alka- 
menes 88  ; on  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon 

465- 

Hera  of  Polykleitos  218.  223.  242  ; of  Alkamenes 
82.  84  ; at  Tlataia  by  the  Elder  Praxiteles  102  ; 
on  the  Parthenon  frieze  431  ; on  the  east  pediment 
465  ; on  the  Nike  temple  449  ; Farnese  (so- 
called  II.)  223,  I ; Barberini  82  seq.  ; Ludovisi 
326. 

Ilerakleia  in  Lucania  : coins  15.  107  ; vases  no. 

Herakles,  of  severe  style  82  ; characterization  in  fifth 
century  178  sqq.  ; crushed  ears  155  ; rolled 
fillet  95,  342  (Fig.  147)  ; resting  274  ; crowning 
himself  255  ; Myronian  178.  202  seq.  236  ; Poly- 
kleitan 234.  sqq.  ; l’heidian  298  ; Skopasian  66, 
5.  235.  296  sqq.  301  ; Praxitelean,  bearded  340 
seq.  beardless  346  seq.  ; with  Telephos  341  ; time 
of  Trajan  204;  terminal  busts  66,  5.  235.  301,  2. 
supposed  entrance  into  Olympos  441,  6 ; not  on 
pediment  of_ Parthenon  467  seq. 

Hermes:  Homeric  conception  340.  With  winged 
fillet  64.  363,  4 ; on  coins  of  Phokaia  58  ; H. 
Ludovisi  58.  231,  1.  Myronian  (?)  184  ; of  Poly- 
kleitan jschool  230.  255.  288.  290.  In  motive  ot 
Diomede  155,  of  Doryphoros  231  sqq.  Leading 
ram  231  ; in  Roman  bronzes  231  seq.  283  ; with 
infant  Dionysos  ; Peloponnesian  230  ; Skopasian  (?) 
300  seq.  338  ; Praxitelean  307  sqq.  337  sqq. 
Lysippian  300.  290.  338. 

Hermolykos,  son  of  Diitrephes  122  seq.  The  Pan- 
kratiast  123 

Heroes,  with  snake  209  ; in  Asklepios  type  277.  On 
the  Nike  temple  (Androkrates  and  Theseus)  449 

Hestia  Giustiniani  23.  81. 

Hippolytos,  statue  249.  277,  6.  On  gem  24S 

Hoplitodronre  204. 

Horai,  on  Corinthian  puteal  441.  On  Parthenon 
pediment  467 

Horses  97.  230. 

Hyakinthides  459,  6. 

Hypatodoros  and  Aristogeiton  41. 

Hypnos  : Cultus  396.  Head-wings  396.  Statues  303. 
395  sel-  C>n  lion  396,  5.  Wrongly  interpreted  as 
H.  274,  3. 

Iakchos,  in  group  noted  by  Pausanias  102  ; by  Elder 
Praxiteles  104  ; confused  with  Dionysos  104,  1. 
With  Eleusinian  goddess  333.  So-called,  in 
Vatican  55.  81.  102,  3. 

Iconic  statues  of  victorious  athletes  128,  2. 

Idolino  283  sqq. 

Inscription  on  statues:  in  older  period  123,  3;  in 
later  373  seq.  400.  Artist  inscriptions  on  copies  95 
seq.  194-  357- 

Ion,  on  west  pediment  of  Parthenon  461  seq.  461,  12, 
>3- 

Ionian  art : reliefs,  style  and  draperies  of  450  seq. 

Iris  on  Parthenon  pediments  457.  465. 


486 


INDEX 


Jupiter  Ton  an  s in  capitolio  190,  3. 

Kalathiskos  dancing  girls  438. 

Kallistratos,  ei«f>pa<reis  164,  2.  340.  397,  I. 

Kekrops,  worship  in  Erechtheiop  434  seq.  On 
Tarthenon  pediment  458  seq. 

Kephalos  on  Parthenon  east  pediment  468. 

Kephisodoros  145  seq. 

Kimon  33.  34  sqq.  41.  423.  437.  And  the  first  Par- 
thenon 420  sqq.  Kimonian  wall  421.  422. 

Kimonian  ‘treaty’  34,  1. 

Kallimachos  437.  441.  450. 

Kore  24. 

Kreousa  461  seq. 

Krison,  the  runner  128. 

Lakrateides,  relief  of  333. 

Leaping  on  to  horse’s  back  137. 

Leda,  statues  394  seq. 

Lekythos,  slave  carrying  chair  428,  3.  In  Paris, 
wounded  warrior  124 

Libation  279.  286. 

Locality  designated  by  human  figures  ; not  in  fifth 
century  458. 

Lucania,  vases  from  109. 

Lysias,  so-called,  in  Villa  Albani8i. 

Maenad  of  Skopas  397.  On  reliefs  439. 

Marathon,  votive  gifts  for  35  sqq. 

Mask-cultus  160  seq. 

Medusa  mask  : types  in  fifth  century  158  seq.  201. 
In  Hellenistic  period  159.  With  neck  severed  159 
seq.  201.  With  wings  158.  160.  With  knot  of 
snakes  158. 

Meleager,  Skopasian  184.  304.  307. 

Melos  : find  of  statues  376.  Sepulchral  caves  ibid. 
Gymnasium  377  seq.  Tyche  of  the  island  381  sqq. 

Menander  309. 

Mikon  41. 

Miltiades  35.  36,  1.  Pinax  with  inscription  of  355. 

Mitra  161. 

Moirai  on  Parthenon  466  seq. 

Motives  : standing  motive,  of  the  school  of  Hagelaidas 
49  sqq.  191  sqq.  215.  287.  314  ; transitional  from 
Ilagelaidas  and  Polykleitos  214  seq.  ; of  Polykleitos 
and  his  school  215.  227  seq.  242,  248.  249  sqq.  254. 
261.  264.  266.  Attic  296  sqq.  Of  Myron  190  seq. 
Pheidian  : n seq.  25.  27.  30.  137  seq.  244.  296. 
319.  324  ; of  Alkamenes  84;  of  Kresilas  143.  Of 
Skopas  and  Lysippos  300  sqq.  394.  Relation  be- 
tween arm  and  leg  227.  247.  Arm  resting  against 
hip  300.  303.  305.  Hand  on  back  238.  273  seq. 
Arm  raised  and  supported  248.  329  sqq.  On  a high 
pillar  380  seq.  ; the  other  arm  also  being  raised 
248.  Hand  supported  274.  Leaning  attitude  329. 
Foot  raised  and  supported  302  seq.  Arm  over 
head  162.  248.  337.  Clasping  knee  304  ; head  bent 
254  ; sceptre  held  high  364,  2.  Sitting  on  the  lap 
of  another  figure  460  seq.  ; long  stride  in  works  of 
Pheidias  99  ; motives  from  the  flat  introduced  into 
sculpture  in  the  round  304. 

Mousaios  64 


Muses:  basis  from  Mantineia  309,  319,  325  ; on  the 
Chigi  relief  408,  10. 

Narkissos,  wrongly  interpreted  as  N.  254,  3 ; on 
gem  275,  2. 

Nemesis  of  Agorakritos  8.  88  ; with  swan  (called 
Leda)  395 

New- Attic  reliefs  43,  4.  439. 

Niketas  31,  9 

Nikias  432  sqq.  437  ; dedicates  Palladion  433  ; and 
Demosthenes  445  seq.  ; and  Delos  ibid. 

Niobids,  reliefs  of  Pheidias  43  seq.  ; statues  394  ; 
Niobid  Chiaramonti  ibid. 

Nymphs,  Sphragitides  449 

Nyx  on  Parthenon  pediment  465 

1 Oil-pourer  ’ 257  sqq.  ; on  vases  259  ; various 
statues  259  sqq.  ; terra-cottas  260,  4 

Oreithyia  on  Parthenon  460. 

Orpheus  relief  88. 

Pain,  expression  of,  in  fifth  century  134  seq. 

Pan,  Polykleitan  299.  Skopasian  (?)  303.  On  frieze 
of  Nike  temple  449. 

Panathenaia  427  sqq.  471. 

Pandora,  on  basis  of  Parthenon  45. 

Pantarkes  39  seq. 

Pantias  of  Chios  349. 

Parian  art  362. 

Parthenoi,  on  west  pediment  of  Parthenon,  and  cultus 
453  m- 

Tarthenon.  See  under  Athens,  Akropolis. 

Parthenos.  See  Index  I. , under  Pheidias. 

Peisianax  41. 

Perildes,  portrait  of  10.  48.  62.  1 1 7 sqq.  145;  and 
Pheidias  34.  36;  and  Kresilas  116;  and  the  Par- 
thenon 422.  423  sqq.  432.  Peace  Congress  423. 

Perseus,  with  Hades  cap  80,  1.  198  ; on  coins  and 
vases  148;  running  or  kneeling  200;  in  tranquil 
attitude  200  seq. ; by  Myron  197  sqq. ; by  Pythago- 
ras 197,  3. 

Personification  of  mountains  458,  3.  468,  3. 

Phigaleia,  sculptures  of  99. 

Philip,  portrait  of  321. 

Phryne  318.  320. 

Plataia,  Hera  at  102.  Battle  of  446  sqq. 

Pliny,  his  chronology  40.  309. 

Poseidon,  Pheidian?  104.  Myronian?  186.  In  west 
pediment  of  Parthenon  456  sqq.  Statue  from  Melos 
376. 

Prize-amphoras  24,  6.  439,  6. 

Promachos.  See  Index  I.,  under  Pheidias. 

Psyche,  so-called,  at  Naples  395. 

Puteal,  Corinthian  441  ; Capitoline  441. 

Pyramids,  small,  of  terra-cotta  469. 

Pythodoros,  son  of  Epizelos  450,  1. 

Rain-charm  469  sqq. 

Ravens,  legend,  interpretation  469  seq. 

River  god,  horned  55.  81.  102,  3. 

Ruvo  vases  109 


INDEX 


487 


Sappho  on  coins  of  Mytilene  71,  1.  Supposed  por- 
trait 69  seq.  Head,  so-called  66. 

Satyr  pouring  wine  310  sqq.  ; resting  329  seq.  ; later 
modification  330. 

Seilenos,  on  Magna  Graecia  vases  108,  7 ; hair  181 

Selene  riding  465.  465,  8. 

Selinos,  Ileraion  at  223,  1. 

Shield  painted  on  the  inside  45. 

Ship,  in  ritual  471. 

Sikyon  and  Argos  416.  School  of  painting  416.  256. 

Sicily  : coins  105  sqq.  vases  no. 

Smikythos  votive  gift  214.  215.  219. 

Sunion,  temple-sculptures  46,  2. 

Tarentum  : coins  45.  107.  vases  no.  Dioskouroi 
cult  of  102. 

Technique  : bronze  7 seq.  18.  134,  2.  233,  6.  352.  391. 
marble  7.  330.  391.  Joined  pieces  369.  376.  395,  3. 
Use  of  drill  309.  334.  344. 

Terminal  busts  and  figures  : varying  turn  of  head 
66,  5.  132,  1.  Shoulder-curls  and  fillets  added 
132,  1.  236.  310,  2.  Of  hip-depth,  draped  274,  6. 
Ludovisi  terms  248,  4.  299.  357. 

Terminal  Aphrodite  274 

Terra  cottas : Boeotian,  severe  style  23,  4.  From 
Asia  Minor  239.  384.  Aphrodite  with  arm  raised 
and  supported  380,  do.  with  foot  raised  400,  1. 
Terra-cotta  slabs  from  Parthenon  frieze  431,  5. 

Tetrapolis  462,  1. 

Theseion.  See  under  Athens,  Lower  City. 

Throne  of  gods  429. 

Thurii,  coins  of.  See  under  Coins. 

Thymilos  311,  2. 

Treasure  of  Confederation  425. 

Treasury  of  Athenians  at  Delphi  35,  5. 

Triptolemos  255.  333.  334.  349.  353  ; of  Praxiteles 

334- 

Turret-crown  worn  by  hero  277  seq. 

Twelve  gods,  Attic  430  seq. 

Tyche,  of  Melos  381  seq.  ; and  Artemis  325  ; and 
Aphrodite  382  ; by  Praxiteles  (Isis-Tyche)  325. 


Vases  : Attic  black-figured  (bareheaded  Athena)  14. 
Severe  fine  style  (h.c.  460 — 450)  14.  25.  Dating 
of  vases  in  the  fifth  century  21.  Paintings  derived 
from  shield  of  Parthenos  44.  45.  99.  109  seq. 
Helios  and  Selene  as  cosmic  setting  to  vase-paint- 
ings 45.  Panathenaic  amphoras  of  later  style  24,  6. 
439,  6.  Late,  black-figured,  white  lekythoi  124. 
Copies  of  statues  on  vases  124.  153.  ‘ Oil-pourer  ’ 

motive  259.  Statuette  vases  80,  1.  332.  With 
Eleusinian  figures  332.  Other  vases  with  Eleu- 
sinian  representations  332,  8.  333  5.  Zeus  on 

vases  (headdress)  42.  217.  Drapery  of  women  21 
sqq.  Magna  Graecia  fabrics,  fifth  century,  108 
sqq.  Influence  of  tragedy  on  vases  no. 

Venus  of  Milo  367  sqq.  ; of  Capua  384  sqq.  ; of  Arles 
319  seq. 

Victory,  writing  on  shield  386  seq. 

Votive  offerings,  to  insure  success  8 ; in  thanksgiving 
after  victory  33.  35.  In  form  ofbuildings,  temples, 
and  temple  images  35.  444  seq.  Seats,  armchairs, 
couches  429  seq.  Custom  of  aradecris  445. 

WHEELS,  with  spokes  in  form  of  double  cross  469. 

Xenokrates,  one  of  Pliny’s  sources  173.  196.  224 
seq.  348.  351.  356. 

Xoanon  444  seq. 

Xouthos  462. 

Zanes  at  Olympia  308.  343.  349. 

Zeus,  of  l’heidias  36  sqq.  ; his  throne  43  seq.  ; Z.  on 
Parthenon  frieze  431  ; on  east  pediment  463  ; in 
Olympia  east  pediment  188.  Myronian  186  sqq. 
Attic,  fourth  century  299.  Of  Otricoli  190.  342. 
Talleyrand  42.  [52,  4.  Eleutherios  in  Syracuse 
and  Lokri  218.  Meilichios  209.  212,  1.  214 
Moiragetes  466.  Hair  42.  217.  On  coins  of  Elis 
218.  At  Olympia  ded.  by  Mummius  215  seq. 
Z.  type  adapted  to  Asklepios  190. 


Richard  Ci.ay  and  Sons,  Limited, 


I-ONDON  AND  liUNGAY. 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY  MAIN 

NB  90  F93  BKS 

c.  1 Furtwangler,  Adolf, 

Masterpieces  of  Greek  sculpture  : a seri 


3 3125  00292  3643 


